Esplora Ebook
Categorie
Esplora Audiolibri
Categorie
Esplora Riviste
Categorie
Esplora Documenti
Categorie
CICLO : XX IV
Aer od yn am ic shape
o p tim izatio n o f ro tary win g
air craft com p onents using
advan ced m ultiobjective
evolutio nar y algor ithm s
SUPE RV ISORE :
Prof. E rne sto Be nini
i
Abstract
iii
Why research?
When I first started my PhD three years ago I must admit I was a bit skeptical
about my future. I don’t know what I will do in my future but I certainly believe
that professional, international experience of a high level is essential to be able to
complete my accademic studies. In any case, three years later as a result this PhD
course has given me much personal satisfaction.
Why embark on a PhD research programme? Why do research? Well I believe
what makes human beings different from animals isn’t either their soul or their
intelligence but what makes man unique is his knowledge and the desire to push
himself ahead beyond his limits.
Giacomo Leopardi wrote between 1829 and 1830 “Night Song of a Wandering
Shepherd in Asia”, and at one point he says:
Gazing towards the sky the poet contemplates on the meaning of life and looks
for an answer to his question : “what is life”?
I think that researchers should draw inspiration from Leopardi’s poems. “Striv
ing for the infinite” is one of the main trains of thought of the Romantic poets and
this is what should distinguish every researcher: push yourself and go beyond
your limits.
So what could be more wonderful and inspiring than doing research? Of
course it means making a lot of sacrifices and getting discouraged at times, but is
there anything more humane than doing research? I don’t think so, I believe it’s
important not to stifle one’s ambitions but keep the flame alive.
In conclusion I urge whoever reads this Thesis to reflect upon my words.
The future of research programmes in Italy at the moment is undergoing some
dark moments. Without Universities and Research programmes hypothetically
speaking we would all become like a bunch of trained circus animals. I think a
great country should be made up of welleducated people with strong critical
and thinking skills in order to make the right decisions for themselves about their
future.
v
vi
Sommario i
Abstract iii
Why research? v
List of Figures xx
Acronyms xxiii
Introduction xxvii
Chapter 1 1
Chapter 2 19
vii
viii CONTENTS
Chapter 3 53
Chapter 4 57
4 Introduction to CFD 57
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.2 Governing equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.2.1 The Continuity Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.2.2 The Momentum Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.2.3 The Energy Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.3 Turbulence Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.3.1 The RANS Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.3.2 The κ − ω turbulence model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.4 Generic form of the Governing Equations for CFD . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.5 The Finite Volume method: an overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Chapter 5 81
Chapter 6 107
Chapter 7 121
I Test case A:
II Test case B:
Conclusions 247
Appendices 253
Acknowledgements 307
Bibliography 309
List of Figures
xiii
xiv LIST OF FIGURES
5.10 The vortex wake behind an upswept afterbody (taken from [89]). . . 95
5.11 Schematic of a synthetic jet (taken from [6]). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.12 Iso surfaces of the instantaneous vorticity magnitude. (a) Uncon
trolled case; (b) controlled case. (taken from [98]) . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5.13 Model mounted in the wind tunnel: detail of vortex generators
(taken from [85]). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.14 Different shapes of vortex generators (taken from [42]). . . . . . . . . 100
5.15 Schematic of the proposed separation control actuation concept
(taken from [97]). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.16 Winglet attached to wing tip (taken from [47]). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.1 CAD model of the ERICA intake and exhaust system. . . . . . . . . 109
6.2 Schematic drawing of subsonic diffuser geometry with straight
centerline (taken from [28].) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
6.3 Schematic drawing of an Sduct with two pockets of swirling flows
(known as the secondary flow patter) generated by the bends (taken
from [28].) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
6.4 Typical stream line patterns in subsonic inlets (taken from [43].) . . . 111
6.5 Possible locations of boundary layer separation (taken from [43].) . . 112
6.6 Onedimensional model for external deceleration study(taken from
[28].) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6.7 Minimum frontal area ratio for various values of c Pmax (s = 0.5 in
equation 6.1)(taken from [43].) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
6.8 Different types of total pressure distortion (taken from [28].) . . . . . 117
6.9 Illustration of totalpressure contours and ϑ sector for definition of
distortion coefficient (taken from [79].) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
6.10 Effect of inlet total pressure distortion on compressor stability (taken
from [28].) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
6.11 Effects of circumferential inlet distortion on multistage axial com
pressor performance (taken from [77].) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
6.12 Effect of circumferential distortion sector angle on surge pressure
ratio (taken from [77].) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
6.13 Effect of number of sectors, on surge pressure ratio (taken from [77].)121
6.14 Effect of the extent of circumferential spoiling on compressor perfor
mance (taken from [28].) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7.31 Parametric shape Sh9, applied to the intake model with scaling
factor α = +1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
7.32 The entire set of geometries calculated during the optimization run. 158
7.33 Final Pareto front after 20 generations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
7.34 Optimized solution geometrical configuration: comparison with the
baseline intake geometry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
7.35 Contours of total pressure ([Pa]) over a series of transversal sections
along the intake duct in hovering condition: comparison of the
baseline (on the left) and optimized (on the right) solutions. . . . . . 161
7.36 Contours of total pressure ([Pa]) over a series of transversal sections
along the intake duct in forward flight condition: comparison of the
baseline (on the left) and optimized (on the right) solutions. . . . . . 162
7.37 Contours of total pressure ([Pa]) over a series of transversal sections
along the intake duct in hovering condition: comparison of the
baseline (on the left) and optimized (on the right) solutions. . . . . . 163
7.38 Contours of total pressure ([Pa]) over a series of transversal sections
along the intake duct in forward flight conditions: comparison of
the baseline (on the left) and optimized (on the right) solutions. . . . 163
7.39 Streamlines pattern inside the air intake in hover: comparison of
baseline (on the left) and optimized (on the right) configurations. . . 164
7.40 Streamlines pattern inside the air intake in forward flight: compari
son of baseline (on the left) and optimized (on the right) configurations.164
7.41 Comparison of baseline and optimized DC60 distribution in hovering.164
7.42 Comparison of baseline and optimized DC60 distribution in forward
flight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
7.43 The final optimized intake geometry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
7.44 Superimposition of the baseline and the optimized intake CAD model.166
7.45 Flow chart of the complete optimization procedure. . . . . . . . . . . 171
7.46 ERICA nose geometry (taken from [74]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
7.47 ERICA nose (on the right) and cylindrical portion of the fuselage
(on the left) (taken from [74]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
7.48 ERICA tail cone (taken from [74]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
7.49 Virtual windtunnel layout with the tiltrotor fuselage. . . . . . . . . . 173
7.50 Superficial mesh over ERICA nose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
7.51 Superficial mesh over the virtual wind tunnel walls. . . . . . . . . . . 176
7.52 Histograms representing ERICA surface mesh quality statistics:
AspectRatio (on the left); Skewness (on the right). . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
7.53 Longitudinal view of the whole volumetric mesh around the tiltrotor
fuselage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
7.54 Closeup of the volume mesh near the fuselage. . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
7.55 Closeup of the volume mesh: boundary layer over the canopy. . . . 179
7.56 Nose drag sensitivity to crosssectional area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
7.57 Nose drag sensitivity to windtunnel box length. . . . . . . . . . . . 184
7.58 Contours of wall y+ over the ERICA fuselage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
xviii LIST OF FIGURES
A.1 View of AIP from Downstream Showing 60°Sector for DC (60) Cal
culation at Angle. (taken from [37]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
xxi
xxii LIST OF TABLES
B.1 Up and down angles as a function of azimuth angles for the ERICA
baseline configuration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
xxiii
Introduction
xxv
xxvi Introduction
• Passenger transport from city heliports to airports, and also between cities or
areas where an efficient surface transport network cannot be developed for
geographical or economical reasons;
• Search, rescue, police and border patrol missions.
In turn, within Green Rotorcraft ITD, six technological projects have been
defined and divided between the two leaders AgustaWestland and Eurocopter.
The first project (GRC1) focuses on blades, where the optimization of shapes
and the use of active control systems are intended to reduce noise and consumption.
The second project (GRC2) concerns airframe design, which must be made more
aerodynamic for more efficient power use in flight. Depending on the rotorcraft
configuration and weight class the aerodynamic cumulated drag benefits are
currently estimated in the range 10 − 15% which would translate into a 4 to 5%
fuel consumption reduction for the same payload and mission.
The third project (GRC3) covers the integration of innovative electrical systems
that will eliminate engine air bleeds and the need for hydraulic fluid.
The fourth project (GRC4) examines the integration of diesel engines on light
helicopters and will eventually lead to the production and flight testing of a
demonstrator.
The fifth (GRC5) is devoted to aeroacoustics research.
The sixth (GRC6) but by no means least important project tackles ecodesign,
an area that is of equal interest to airplane manufacturers. Nevertheless, the Eco
Design ITD also offers certain specificities for helicopter manufacturers, such as
the surface treatment of dynamic components in the power transmission system.
These six projects will be followed by the synthesis work that will technologically
assess the solutions after integration.
The subject of this Thesis deals with the second Green Rotorcraft project
(GRC2), since the content of the research illustrated here aims at gaining a deeper
insight into the computerbased optimization procedure of helicopters and tilt
rotor airframe components.
In this context, AgustaWestland and the University of Padova are focusing
their attentions on the opportunity to integrate the classical trial and error design
approach with a more advanced approach, based on the automatic search of
optimal solutions using optimization algorithms.
The present Thesis becomes part of the AgustaWestland/University of Padova
aerodynamic optimization research program, with the purpose to build up an
automatic optimization procedure able to deal with mono and multiobjective
aerodynamic, but even multidisciplinary, optimization problems, in order to create
an optimization tool able to drastically improve the aerodynamic characteristics of
fuselage component under investigation. The AgustaWestland requirements for
this optimization tool are the following:
• It has to include the softwares at the moment available at AgustaWestland, re
garding CAD geometry elaboration (CATIA), mesh generation (HyperMesh)
and parametrization (HyperMorph), and advanced aerodynamic analysis
calculation (Fluent® and/or OpenFOAM®);
Introduction xxvii
• It has to be able to run also on high computational power machines, like the
UNIX/Linux based cluster computers2 ;
• It has to enable the user to treat not only singleobjective, but also multi
objective optimization problems.
The last item of the previous list, enforces the choice of an intrinsically multi
objective optimization algorithm, like the homemade algorithm developed during
my PhD course, i.e. the GeDEAII, as optimization engine. The central point of the
present thesis is, therefore, to implement the proper interface among the optimiza
tion engine GeDEAII, the aerodynamic solvers (Fluent® and/or OpenFOAM®),
and parameterization tool Hypermorph, all of them capable of running on both
Windowsbased workstations and Linux/UNIXbased clusters.
To prove the applicability of that optimization procedure on real engineering
problems, three test problems were addressed.
The aerodynamic optimization of the nose region, belonging to the AgustaWest
land new tiltrotor concept ERICA [37], has been carried out, demonstrating that
such kind of parametric analysis may become a really useful design tool in the
future. To perform this work, both Fluent® and OpenFOAM® CFD solvers where
exploited. Related test cases are Test Case B and Test Case C, respectively, presented
in Chapter 7.
Moreover, the aerodynamic optimization of the AW101 left air intake system
has been performed, in order to prove further the versatility and robustness of the
optimization loop, and presented within Test case A of Chapter 7.
The Thesis is structured as follows.
Chapter 1 provides all the theory knowledge about optimization methods.
GeDEAII algorithm is presented in Chapter 2, with a particular emphasis on its
framework, its operators and its performance measured against some stateofthe
art algorithms, on stateoftheart benchmark problems.
Morphing technologies are introduced in Chapter 3.
A general introduction to CFD is then presented in Chapter 4.
Chapter 5 gives general informations about aircraft external aerodynamics,
along with the most promising techniques aiming at reducing aircraft overall drag.
Chapter 6 constitutes a brief introduction to the intake aerodynamics, in order
to prepare the ground for the optimization problem regarding the AW101 left
airintake system discussed in Part I of Chapter 7.
Chapter 7 represents the main segment of the Thesis, where the optimization
procedure and its application to the AW101 left intake and ERICA nose region are
wholly described.
Finally the conclusions which can be drawn from the whole work are presented,
along with some suggestions for future works and developments.
2A computer cluster is a group of linked computers, working together closely so that in many
respects they form a single computer. The components of a cluster are commonly, but not always,
connected to each other through fast local area networks. Clusters are usually deployed to improve
performance and/or availability over that of a single computer, while typically being much more
costeffective than single computers of comparable speed or availability
xxviii Introduction
Chapter 1
Compute Objective
function f(Xi)
Generate new
solution Xi+1
Compute Objective
function f(Xi+1)
Set i=i+1
Convergence Check
No
Yes
Optimal Solution Fig. 1 Flowchart of Search Algorithm
Xopt=Xi
D Nagesh Kumar,
Figure IISc, Bangaloreof
1.1: Flowchart Search Algorithm. M8L4
1
Most of the real world system models involve nonlinear optimization with complicated
objective functions or constraints for which analytical solutions (solutions using quadratic
programming, geometric programming, etc.) are not available. In such cases one of the
possible solutions is the search algorithm in which, the objective function is first computed
with a trial solution and then the solution is sequentially improved based on the
corresponding objective function value till convergence. A generalized flowchart of the
search algorithm in solving a nonlinear optimization with decision variable X
2 1. Optimization techniques and Evolutionary algorithms
3. Stochastic methods.
min f ( x ) (1.1)
x ∈Rn
where x is the vector of the design variables, x ∈ Rn , f(x) is the objective function
that returns a scalar value, in monoobjective optimization cases f ( x ) : Rn → R,
or a vector of p elements where p is the number of objectives in the multiobjective
problem considered, f(x):Rn → R p ), and the vector function G(x) returns the values
of the equality and inequality constraints evaluated at the actual value of the design
variables x, G(x):Rn → Rm . An efficient and accurate solution to this problem is
not only dependent on the size of the problem in term of design variables and
constraints, but also on characteristics of the objective and constraint functions.
When both the objective function and the constraints are linear function of the
design parameters the problem is know as a Linear Programming problem (LP).
Quadratic Programming (QP) concerns the minimization or maximization of a
quadratic objective function that is linearly constrained. For both these kinds of
problems, reliable solution procedures are readily available. More complicated
to solve is the Nonlinear Programming problem (NP) where both the objective
function and constraints are nonlinear function of the design parameters. Generally
a solution of the nonlinear problem requires an iterative procedure to establish a
search direction at each iteration; this is usually achieved by the solution of an LP,
a QP, or an unconstrained subproblem.
References, which use informations about the gradient and higher derivatives to
search for an optimal solution, a direct search algorithm searches a set of points
around the current point , looking for one where the value of the objective function
is lower than the value at the current point. Direct search methods are suitable to
solve problems for which the objective function is not differentiable, stochastic, or
even discontinuous.
Some of the direct search algorithms for solving nonlinear optimization, which
requires objective functions, are described below:
1. Random Search Method: This method generates trial solutions for the op
timization model using random number generators for the decision vari
ables. Random search method includes random jump method, random walk
method and random walk method with direction exploitation. Random jump
method generates huge number of data points for the decision variable
assuming a uniform distribution for them and finds out the best solution
by comparing the corresponding objective function values. Random walk
method generates trial solution with sequential improvements which is gov
erned by a scalar step length and a unit random vector. The random walk
method with direct exploitation is an improved version of random walk
method, in which, first the successful direction of generating trial solutions is
found out and then maximum possible steps are taken along this successful
direction.
Due to its semplicity, easytouse, and because of its popularity, the latter
method is briefly introduced in the next section.
0 r 0
Khimii.
original shape In fact,
of the there isregardless
simplex, an entire book fromdimension.
of the the chemicalWhatengineering
Neldercommunity
and Mead devoted to simplex search
for optimization [28].
proposed was to supplement the basic reflection move with additional options
So why bother
designed to accelerate thewith looking
search by any further? Why
deforming the not rely exclusively
simplex in a way on that
the NelderMead
they simplex method
suggested ifwould
one is going
better to employ
adapt atodirect search method?
the features of theThe answer: there
objective is the outstanding
function. To this question regarding
end, they added what are known as expansion and internal and external contraction optimizers. When the
the robustness of the NelderMead simplex method that has long troubled numerical
method works,
moves, as shown in Figureit can1.2work
b).very well indeed,
In addition tooften
these ﬁnding a solution in far
improvements, fewer evaluations
Nelder and of the objective
function than other direct search methods. But it can also
Mead also resolved the question of what to do if none of the steps tried bring fail. One can see this in the applications literature,
acceptablefairly early on, frequently
improvement by addingreported as no more
a shrink than
step: “slow”
when allconvergence.
else fails, A systematic
reduce the study of NelderMead,
when applied to a suite of standard optimization test problems,
lengths of the edges adjacent to the current best vertex by half, as is also illustrated also reported occasional convergence to a
on the rightnonstationary
side of Figurepoint 1.2of the
b).function [24]; the one consistent observation to be made was that in these instances
the deformation of the simplex meant that the search direction (i.e., the direction deﬁned along the worst
vertex toward the centroid of the remaining vertices) became numerically orthogonal to the gradient.
These observations about the behavior of NelderMead in practice led to two, relatively recent, investiga
tions. The ﬁrst [13], strives to investigate what can be proven about the asymptotic behavior of NelderMead.
The results show that in R1 , the algorithm is robust; under standard assumptions, convergence to a station
1.3 Gradientbased Methods
ary point is guaranteed. Some general for Unconstrained
properties Problems
in higher dimensions can also be proven, but none that
guarantee global convergence for problems in higher dimensions.
This is not surprising in light of a second recent result by McKinnon [16]. He shows with several examples
The derivativefree, or on
that limits exist proving globalsearch
gradientbased algorithms
convergence are basedto on
for NelderMead: wit,the
thederiva
algorithm can fail on smooth
tives or gradients of the objective function. The gradient of a function in n
10
1.3 Gradientbased Methods for Unconstrained Problems 7
∂ f /∂x1
∂ f /∂x
2
.
∇f = (1.2)
.
.
∂ f /∂xn
Gradientbased search algorithms include:
1. Steepest Descent (Cauchy) Method: In this method, the search starts from
an initial trial point X1 , and iteratively moves along the steepest descent
directions until the optimum point is found. Although the method is straight
forward, it is not applicable to the problems having multiple local optima. In
such cases the solution may get stuck at local optimum points.
∇ f = ∇ f i + [ Ji ]( x − xi ) = 0 (1.5)
The procedure is repeated till convergence for finding out the optimal solu
tion.
1
min x T Hx + c T x + b (1.7)
x 2
x ∗ = − H −1 c = 0 (1.9)
q x q Tx HkT skT sk Hk
Hk+1 = Hk + − (1.10)
q Tx sk skT Hk sk
where:
s k = x k +1 − x k
q k = ∇ f ( x k +1 ) − ∇ f ( x k )
As starting point, H0 can be set to any symmetric positive definite matrix. To avoid
the inversion of the Hessian, one can use a formula that makes an approximation of
the inverse Hessian at each update; a well know procedure of this kind is the DFP
formula of Davidon, Fletcher and Powell. This uses the same formula as the BFGS
method (Eq.1.10) except that qk is substituted for sk . The gradient information
is either supplied through analytically calculated gradients, or derived by partial
1.4 Gradientbased Methods for Constrained Problems 9
d = − Hk−1 ∇ f ( xk ) (1.11)
x k +1 = x k + α k d (1.12)
in the order to meet the minimization condition f(xk+1 ) f( xk ), where αk is the line
search step evaluated with a line search technique [101].
m
∇ f ( x ∗ ) + ∑ λi∗ ∇ Gi ( x ∗ ) = 0
i =1
Gi ( x ∗ ) = 0(i = 1, . . . , me )
Gi ( x ∗ ) ≤ 0(i = me + 1, . . . , m) (1.13)
λi∗ >0
m
∑ λi∗ Gi (x∗ ) = 0
i =1
10 1. Optimization techniques and Evolutionary algorithms
The first equation describes a cancelling of the gradient between the objective
function and the active constraints at the solution point. For the gradient to
be cancelled, Lagrangian multipliers (λi = 1,. . .,m) are necessary to balance the
magnitude deviation of the objective function and the constraints gradients. Since
only active constraints are included in this cancelling operation, constraints that
are not active not active must not be included in this operation and be set with a
corresponding Lagrangian multiplier equal to zero. This is stated implicitly in the
last two equations in Eq. 1.13.
The solution of the KKT equations forms the basis to many nonlinear pro
gramming algorithms. These algorithms attempt to compute directly the Lagrange
multipliers. Constrained QuasiNewton methods guarantee superlinear conver
gence by accumulating second order information regarding the KKT equations
using a QuasiNewton updating procedure. These method are commonly referred
to as Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) methods since a QP subproblem
is solved at each major iteration. These methods are briefly introduced in the
following section.
1
minn d T Hk d + ( xk )T d
d∈< 2
∇ Gi ( xk ) d + G( xk ) = 0(i = 1, . . . , me )
T
(1.15)
∇ Gi ( xk ) d + G( xk ) ≤ 0(i = me + 1, . . . , m)
T
This subproblem can be solved using any QP algorithm and the solution is
used to form a new iterate:
x k +1 = x k + α k d (1.16)
The step length parameter αk is determined by a line search procedure so
that an appropriate decrease in a merit function is obtained. The matrix H k is
an approximation of the Hessian matrix of the Lagrangian function and it can
be updated using the BFGS method previously discussed in section 1.3.1. A
nonlinearly constrained problem can often be solved with fewer iteration then
an unconstrained problem using SQP; the reason for this is that, because of the
limit in the feasible area, the optimizer can make wellinformed decision regarding
directions of search and step length.
1.5 Evolutionary Algorithms 11
1. Selection rules select the individuals, called parents, which contribute to the
population at the next generation;
2. Crossover rules combine two parents to form the children for the next
generation;
Genetic algorithms are really effective in general applications because they can
be used to solve a variety of optimization problems which are not well suited for
the standard algorithms just discussed in sections 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, including problems
in which the objective function is discontinuous, nondifferentiable, stochastic,
or highly nonlinear, such as the CFD functions. The main differences between
genetic algorithms and classical, derivative based, optimization algorithms are
summarized in the Table 1.1.
Classical Algorithms Evolutionary Algorithms
They generate a single point at each They generate a population of points
iteration. The sequence of points ap at each iteration. The generations se
proaches an optimal solution quence converges toward an optimal
solution
They select the next point in the se They select the next population by com
quence by deterministic calculations putations which uses random number
generators
Suitable for continuous, differentiable Suitable for every kind of function
functions
Appropriate for local optimum search Appropriate for global optimum search
They are intrinsically singleobjective The fact that they evolve a population,
algorithms rather than a single solution, makes
them intrinsically multiobjective algo
rithms
In the genetic algorithm practice is common the use of some biological terms,
12 1. Optimization techniques and Evolutionary algorithms
which are now introduced in the follows, for better clarify the meaning of the
terminology used thorough the whole text of this Thesis.
• Fitness Function: the fitness function is the function that have to be optimized;
another way to call the objective function just named from section 1.1 to 1.4.1;
• Individual: an individual is any point in the search space to which the fitness
function is applicable; it corresponds to a given set of decision variables;
• Crossover children are created by combining pairs of parents in the cur rent
population;
• Mutation children are created by randomly changing the genes of the indi
vidual parents;
subject string
For variablelength to thechromosomes,
constraints: the same crossover operations are available as for
ﬁxedlength strings except that the strings are no longer necessarily split at the same loci.
• equality constraints, Gi (x) = 0 ( i = 1,. . . ,me );
F1
x1
Λ = {y ∈ℜ }
k
Ω = {x ∈ℜ }
n
F
F2
F3
x2
best tradeoffs in the objective function space. For the reader’s convenience, the
rest of the section is devoted to the mathematical definitions of the key concepts
concerning Pareto optimality; examples of these concepts can be found elsewhere
[19, 52].
Pareto Dominance: A vector u = (u1 ,. . . ,um ) is said to dominate v = (v1 . . .,vm )
(denoted by u ≺ v) if and only if ∀i 1,. . . , m, ui ≤ vi ∧ ∃ j ∈ 1, . . . , m : u j < v j . u is
also said to cover v(u v) if and only if u ≺ v or u = v.
Pareto Optimality: A solution x ∈ N is said to be Pareto optimal with respect
to the whole set N if and only if there is no other solution x 0 ∈ N for which F(x’)
dominates F(x).
Pareto Optimal Set: For a given MOOP evaluation function F : N → M, the
Pareto optimal set (POS) is defined as the subset of all the Pareto optimal vectors
in the decision variable set:
• Goal method: with this strategy, the equivalent scalar function to be opti
mized is the distance between the vectorial objective function value and a
certain reference vector (Goal vector) F Goal chosen by the designer:
where
k
kvk p = ( ∑ v p )1/p , 1≤p≤∞ (1.22)
i =1
• Trade off method: one objective function Fl ( x ) is chosen and the remaining
objectives Fi ( x )(i = 1, 2, . . . , k, i 6= l ) are dealt as constraints, imposing their
upper bound values ei . The problem to be solved is the follow:
min Fl ( x ), l ∈ {1, 2, . . . , k }
(1.24)
Fi ( x ) ∈ ei , ∀i = 1, 2, . . . , k i 6= l
These are only few scalarization method suggested in literature. For more details
about these and other scalarization methods see references [100], [88], [87].
The population is ranked according to a dominance rule, and than each individual is
assigned a fitness value based on its rank in the population, not its actual objective
function value
19
20 2. GeDEAII: A powerful and robust MOEA
When the GeDEM is applied, the actual ranks of the solutions are determined
maximizing (i) the ranks scored with respect to the objectives of the original MOOP,
the nondominated solutions having the highest rank, and (ii) the values assigned
to each individual as a measure of its genetic diversity, calculated according
to the chosen distance metric, i.e. the (normalized) Euclidean distance in the
decision variable space. The structure of GeDEA follows the main steps of a (µ + λ)
Evolution Strategy [10]. The evolution, however, is considered at its genotypic level,
with the traditional binary coding of the decision variables. In the following the
framework of the GeDEA is recalled for clarity.
Step 3: λ offspring are generated by crossover. Some bits of the offspring are also
randomly mutated with a probability pmut .
Step 5: The objective function values of the µ + λ individuals are evaluated and
the nondominated sorting procedure by Goldberg (1989) is performed to
assign the ranks to the solutions according to the objectives of the MOOP.
22 2. GeDEAII: A powerful and robust MOEA
Step 7: GeDEM is applied according to the ranks scored in Step 5 and the values
of the diversity measure assigned in Step 6. The nondominated sorting
procedure by [39] is used again to assign the ranks.
Step 8: The best µ solutions among parents and offspring, according to the ranks
assigned in Step 7 by GeDEM, are selected for survival and the remaining λ
are eliminated.
While GeDEAII shares with its predecessor the same framework, it is presented
in this work in a realcoded fashion, hence it features the same parameters represen
tation of the competitor algorithms already presented in Section 2.1. Moreover, this
choice was made in view of using it for solving realworld engineering optimiza
tion problems. In order to prove the efficiency of the (µ + λ) Evolution Strategy,
whose steps are strictly followed in GeDEAII, a comparison with the competitor
algorithms framework was performed. For each algorithm, the same crossover,
mutation and selection operators were exploited, that is the SBX Crossover [2],
the Polynomial Mutation (implemented as described in [25]) and the Tournament
Selection [9] operators, respectively. Results of these comparisons are depicted in
Figure 2.1. The results presented here refer to the ZDT1 biobjective test problem,
which involves 30 decision variables, and is thoroughly described in Section 2.4.1.
Results hint that the GeDEAII framework provides remarkable results in terms
of both convergence and Pareto Set coverage, and therefore underlies the good
performance of the algorithm itself.
0.7
0.6
0.5
f2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Figure 2.1: Approximate Paretooptimal set reached by GeDEAII, GeDEA, IBEA, NSGAII
and SPEA2 provided with the same evolutionary operators, on ZDT1 test function.
��
��� �� ��
�
Figure 2.2: The reflection step of the simplex algorithm applied to a problem in R2 .
where Child is the new formed child and Refl is the reflection coefficient.
It is assumed that p1 is the best fitness individual among the two chosen to
form the Child, whereas p2 the worst one. Belove the strategy followed to decide
every time the best and the worst individual is highlighted.
M is the centroid of p1, calculated in the following manner:
1
M := · ( p1 ) (2.2)
n
where n is the number of the remaining individual, excluded the worst one. A
dedicated discussion will be done concerning this coefficient, and reported belove.
Refl coefficient is set equal to a random number (re f l ∈ [0, 1]), unlike the elemental
Simplex theory, which assumes a value equal to 1 for the Refl coefficient. This
choice allows to create a child every time distant in a random manner from the
parents, hence to explore more deeply the design space.
Moreover, unlike the Simplex algorithm theory, it was decided to give the
algorithm the possibility to switch between 1 and 2 the coefficient n in Equation 2.2.
This choice proved to be effective when used in conjunction with the Selftuning
operator described in Section 2.3.4, since the algorithm is given the possibility to
choose every time the proper parameter setting.
The information about the fitness values is the key issue of this version of
crossover: unlike the Simplexcrossover operator presented in Tsutsui et. al [91],
this characteristic allows the crossover process to create a new individual, which is
expected to be better than the parents. This new crossover operator was expected to
combine both exploration and exploitation characteristics. In fact, the new formed
child comprises the genes of two parents, that means a good exploration of the
design space. However, it explores a design space region opposite to that covered
by the parent number 2, that means it explores a region potentially not covered
so far. In the early stages of the evolution, this means that child moves away from
regions covered from bad parents, while exploring new promising ones.
Since the Simplex algorithm is itself a singleobjective optimizer, a strategy was
implemented to adapt it to a multiobjective algorithm. To deeply exploit the char
acteristics of the simplex, at each generation the mean of each objective function,
extended to all the µ individuals, is computed. This mean is then compared to
the one characterizing the previous generation, and the objective function having
the greatest variation is selected as the fitness function used within the Simplex
algorithm to decide every time the best and the worst individual. This choice was
made after several experiments, which showed how a correct balance between
exploration of the search space and the convergence to the P.F. can be achieved by
26 2. GeDEAII: A powerful and robust MOEA
means of a switching among multiple objective functions, each time selecting the
most promising one.
In Figure 2.3, the flow chart related to the application of the Simplex crossover in
a multiobjective context is presented, extended to the most general case involving
M objective functions. It it assumed that all of the objectives are to be minimized.
At each generation ignr, the mean of each objective function mean is calculated.
Based on these values, the percentage variations PV are subsequently derived. At
this point, the two selected parents are sorted according to these values, and the
child created according to Eqs. 2.1 and 2.2. This choice guarantees that the objective
function characterized by the greatest variation is selected every time, therefore
ensuring the highest convergence rate to the PF. For test problem involving more
than two objective functions, the objective function considered to form the new
child is chosen randomly in order to enhance the design space exploration of the
crossover, required in highly dimensional objective spaces.
for i=1:M
q
MEANi (ignr ) =
old f it2h,i
µ
∑ h =1
µ END for
for i=1:M
MEANi (ignr −1)− MEANi (ignr )
PVi = MEANi (ignr −1)
END for
A = maxi∈ M ( PVi )
Is the offspring
Perform Simplex crossover according to
population
the guidelines given in Eqs.2.1 and 2.2
completed?
yes
stop
IBEA_SC IBEA_SBX
SPEA2_SC 90 SPEA2_SBX
5 1 NSGA−II_SC NSGA−II_SBX
True P.F. 80 True P.F.
0.9
IBEA_SC 0.8 70
4
NSGA−II_SC
SPEA2_SC 0.7 60
IBEA_SBX 0.6
3
f2
NSGA−II_SBX 50
SPEA2_SBX 0.5
f3
f3
True P.F. 40
0.4
2 30
0.3
0.2 20
1
0.1 10
0 1 0 100
0 0 0
0.5 50
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0.5 50
f1 1 0 f2 100 0
f2
f1 f1
Figure 2.4: Approximate Paretooptimal set reached by IBEA, NSGAII and SPEA2 pro
vided with and without the SimplexCrossover, on ZDT6 (on the left) and DTLZ6 (on the
right) test functions.
In general, mutation operator specifies how the genetic algorithm makes small
random changes in the individuals in the population to create mutation children.
Mutation provides genetic diversity and enables the genetic algorithm to search
a broader space. Unlike the previous version of mutation featuring GeDEA algo
rithm, where some bits of the offspring were randomly mutated with a probability
pmut , here the mutation operator adds a random number taken from a Gaus
sian distribution with mean equal to the original value of each decision variable
characterizing the entry parent vector. The shrinking schedule employed is:
ignr
Shrink i := Shrink i−1 · 1 − (2.3)
ngnr
where Shrink i is a vector representing the current mutation range allowed for that
particular design variable, ignr represents the current generation and ngnr the
total number of generations. The shape of the shrinking curve was decided after
several experimental tests. The fact that the variation is zero at the last generation
is also a key feature of this mutation operator. Being conceived in this manner,
the mutation allows to deeply explore the design space during the first part of
the optimization, while exploiting the nondominated solutions during the last
generations. Once the current variation range has been calculated, one decision
variable of the mutated child is randomly selected, and mutated according to the
following formula, resulting from an extensive experimental campaign:
p
Childmut := Childcross + [( Shrink i · random) · Shrink i ] (2.4)
where Childmut is the mutated decision variable, Childcross is the decision variable
generated by the previously introduced crossover operator and random is a ran
dom number taken from a normal distribution in the open interval [1,1]. Unlike
crossover operator, which generates all the offspring, mutation is applied only
2.3 Genetic Diversity Evolutionary AlgorithmII
(GeDEAII) 29
DTLZ1 test function. DTLZ1 test function. DTLZ1 test function. DTLZ1 test function.
Shrink mutation Polynomial mutation Shrink mutation Polynomial mutation
2.5 1
5 10
0.9
4.5 9
2 IBEA 0.8
4 Spea2 8
True P.F. IBEA
0.7 True P.F.
True P.F.
3.5 7
Spea2
1.5 0.6 True P.F.
3 6
0.5
f3
2.5 5
f3
f3
f3
1 0.4
2 4
0.3
1.5 3
0.5 0.2
1 2
0.1
0.5 1
0 0
0 0 0
0
0 0
1 0.5
2 5
2 1.5 2 2.5 1
0.5 1 1 0.5 4 4 5 10
0 0 2 3 10 5
0 1 0
f1 f2 f1 f2
f1 f2 f1 f2
(a) DTLZ1 test function. IBEA algorithm (b) DTLZ1 test function. Spea2 algorithm
5 10
4.5 9
4 8
3.5 7 Nsga2
Nsga2
3 True P.F. True P.F.
6
2.5 5
f3
f3
2 4
1.5 3
1 2
0.5 1
0 0
0 0
2 5
4 10
4 2 5
0 10 0
f1 f2 f1 f2
Figure 2.5: Approximate Paretooptimal sets reached by IBEA, NSGAII and SPEA2
provided with the ShrinkMutation operator (on the left side of each subfigure) and with
the PolynomialMutation operator (on the right side of each subfigure).
Figure 2.5(a) shows that Polynomial mutation used in IBEA algorithm gives the
best results in terms of convergence towards the True Pareto Front. However, as far
as distribution of solutions is concerned, Shrink mutation performs better. However,
the results of this comparison are slightly different when NSGAII, whose test is
presented in Figure 2.5(c) and SPEA2, whose test is presented in Figure 2.5(b),
are provided with the Shrink mutation operator. In these cases, the latter gives
the best results in terms of both convergence and distribution when compared to
Polynomial mutation. Thank to these results, as far as GeDEAII is concerned, it
was decided to use them alternatively during the evolution, in order to capture the
best of the two mutation operators.
Clearly, the logical operator is the great difference between the aforementioned
diversity mechanisms, which entails the slightly different behavior of the two
algorithms. In particular, GeDEM tends to create less nondominated individuals,
since both the rank and the diversity conditions are to be fulfilled simultaneously.
Therefore, the evolution process results faster. On the other hand, nondominated
sorting based on crowding distance tends to create more nondominated individu
als, which results in a better Pareto front coverage. In order to take advantage of
both the characteristics, in GeDEAII the diversity preservation is accomplished
by means of GeDEM, in the first three quarters of the generations, whereas in the
remainder of the generations the NonDominated Sorting mechanism is exploited.
1. The first four generations are calculated by means of Set1 , starting from the
initial population randomly created;
2. The second four generations are calculated by means of Set0 , once again
starting from the same the initial population;
3. The mean of all the objective functions are calculated for the initial population;
calculations are repeated for the final populations created with each set (the
fourth and the eighth population, respectively);
4. For each of the objective functions, the percentage variations are calculated,
for both the two sets.
6. Finally, the set is selected, which yielded the greatest variation between the
two stored;
Minimize : T (x) = ( f 1 ( x1 ), f 2 ( x ))
subject to : f 2 (x) = g( x2 ; . . . ; x m )h( f 1 ( x1 ), g( x2 ; . . . ; x m )) (2.5)
where : x = ( x1 , . . . , xM )
influence search along and towards the true Pareto front, and the shape of a Pareto
front in R2 . Deb [22] implies that a MOEA has difficulty finding PFtrue because it
gets ‚Äútrapped‚Äù in the local optimum, namely PFlocal . Test functions reported
in this work feature an increased number of decision variables, when compared to
their original versions reported in [102]. This choice was motivated by the authors’
will of testing exploration capabilities of the algorithms also on highly dimensional
test problems, and contributes to justify the results presented in Section 2.4.4.
f 1 ( x 1 ) = ( x1 )
n
xi
g( x2 ; . . . ; x n ) = 1 + 9 · ∑ (2.6)
i =2
( n − 1)
s
f1
h ( f1 , g ) = 1 −
g
f 1 ( x 1 ) = ( x1 )
n
xi
g( x2 ; . . . ; x n ) = 1 + 9 · ∑ (2.7)
i =2
( n − 1)
2
f1
h ( f1 , g ) = 1 −
g
f 1 ( x 1 ) = ( x1 )
n
xi
g( x2 ; . . . ; x n ) = 1 + 9 · ∑ (2.8)
i =2
( n − 1)
s !
f1 f
h(f1 , g) = 1 − − 1 · sin(10πf1 )
g g
• Test function T4 contains 219 local Paretooptimal fronts and, therefore, tests
34 2. GeDEAII: A powerful and robust MOEA
f 1 ( x 1 ) = ( x1 )
n
g( x2 ; . . . ; x n ) = 1 + 10(n − 1) · ∑ xi 2 − 10 cos(4πxi )) (2.9)
i =2
s
f1
h ( f1 , g ) = 1 −
g
where n = 100 and xi ∈ [0,1]. The Paretooptimal front is convex and cor
responds to g(x) = 1. The original version presented in [102] featured 10
decision variables.
Finally, the entire set of triobjective test functions designed by Kalyanmoy Deb,
Lothar Thiele, Marco Laumanns and Eckart Zitzler, and presented in [26], are
2.4 Comparison with Other Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms 35
• Test function DTLZ2 is the Generic sphere problem, according to the defini
tion given to it in [26].
• Test function DTLZ3 is similar to test function DTLZ2, except for the function
g, which introduces (3k − 1) local Paretooptimal fronts, and only one global
Paretooptimal front.
where n =22, α = 100 and xi ∈ [0,1]. Deb, Thiele, Laumanss and Zitzler [26]
also suggest n=12 here.
where n =22 and xi ∈ [0,1]. The number of variables suggested in [26] for this
test problem is 12.
where n = 100 and xi ∈ [0,1]. The number of variables suggested in [26] for
this test problem is 12.
f 1 ( x ) = x1
f 2 ( x ) = x2
f 3 ( x ) = (1 + g(xM ))h (2.18)
9
k x1∑
g = 1+ ( xi )
∈x M
M −1
fi
and h = M − ∑ (sin((1 + 3π f i ))
i =1
1+g
where n = 100 and xi ∈ [0,1]. Once again, the number of decision variables
was dramatically increased when compared to the original one, suggested in
[26] for this test problem, and equal to 22.
2.4.2 Methodology
The methodology used in [102] is strictly followed. GeDEA and competitors are
executed 30 times on each test function. There are different parameters associated
with the various algorithms, some common to all and some specific to a particular
one. In order to make a fair comparison among all the algorithms, most of these
constants are kept the same. In GeDEAII, GeDEA and in competitors algorithms,
the population size is set to 100. In the following, the parameters of the competitors
MOEA are reported following the terminology used in PISA implementation5 . The
individual mutation probability is always 1 and the variable mutation probability
is fixed at 1/n, n being the number of the decision variables of the test problem
considered. The individual recombination probability along with the variable
recombination probability are set to 1. The variable swap probability is set to 0.5.
ηmutation is always set to 20 and ηrecombination is fixed to 15. For IBEA algorithm,
tournament size is always set to 2, whereas additive epsilon is chosen as the
indicator. Scaling factor kappa is set to 0.05, and rho factor is fixed to 1.1. For both
NSGAII and SPEA2, tournament size is given a value equal to 2. NSGAII, SPEA2
and IBEA are run with the PISA6 implementation [15], with exactly the same
parameters and variation operators. The maximum number of generations for test
functions T1 , T2 and T6 is set to 20 for all the algorithms, for test functions T3 and
T4 the individuals are evolved for 40 generations but for the Kursawe test function
the number of generations is set to 50. For test function DTLZ1 and DTLZ7 , the
number of generations is set to 100. This number of generation is increased up
5 Individualmutation probability (probability that a certain individual undergoes mutation); individ
ual recombination probability (probability that a certain pair of individuals undergoes recombination);
variable mutation probability (probability that a certain variable in a given individual is mutated);
variable swap probability (probability that a certain pair of variables is swapped during recombination);
variable recombination probability (probability that the SBX recombination operator is used for a given
pair of variables; this decision is independent from variable swap probability); ηmutation (distribution
index for mutation operator); ηrecombination (distribution index for recombination operator).
6 This software is available for public use at PISA website http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/pisa/
38 2. GeDEAII: A powerful and robust MOEA
to 150 for DTLZ3 test function. In test functions DTLZ4 and DTLZ5 , individuals
are evolved for 80 generations, whereas on DTLZ2 and DTLZ6 the number of
generation is set to 70 and 50, respectively.
In Table 2.2, the original number of generations characterizing test problems
presented in [102] and [26], is compared to the ones used here. The number
of generations was reduced in order to test the convergence properties of the
investigated algorithms. In fact, being the number of individuals constituting a
generation left unchanged, a reduction of generations directly translates into a
reduction of the objective functions evaluations.
Table 2.2: Original and proposed number of generations for the ZDT and DTLZ test suites.
The different settings contribute to justify the different results reported here,
when compared to those presented in the original papers [102, 26].
Fig. 3 ‐ Significance of the Hypervolume indicator as far as convergence (a, AT THE TOP), and
Figure 2.6: Significance
of the Hypervolume indicator as far as convergence (a, AT THE
diversity (b, AT THE BOTTOM) is concerned.
from the union set of the outcomes of the first five runs, the best and the worst
one being discarded. The performance of GeDEAII is also compared to NSGAII,
SPEA2 and IBEA according to the hypervolume metric defined in Equation 2.19.
The distribution of these values is shown using box plots in Figure 2.13 and 2.21.
On each box, the central line represents the median, the edges of the box are the
25th and 75th percentiles, the whiskers extend to the most extreme data points not
considered outliers, and outliers are plotted individually, with a Plus sign. Results
are normalized with the best Hypervolume value coming from the union set of all
of the runs, extended to all of the algorithms. For each test problem, the reference
point is assumed equal for all of the algorithms, and equal to the maximum value
for each objective function from the union of all of the output points. In presenting
the DTLZ test suit results, the exact order is not strictly followed due to layout
reasons.
2.4 Comparison with Other Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms 41
ZDT1 test function
5
GeDEAII
4.5 GeDEA
IBEA
4
NSGAII
3.5 SPEA2
True P.F.
3
f2
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
f1
Figure 2.7: Test function T1 (convex).
T2 test function
4.5
3.5
2.5
GeDEA−II
f2
2 GeDEA
IBEA
1.5 NSGA−II
SPEA2
1 True P.F.
0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
f1
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
f1
Figure 2.9: Test function T3 (discrete).
0.5
f2
150
0.4
100
0.3
50
0.2
0
50 0.1
100 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
f1
f1
(a) ZDT4 test function. A proper scale in order for all (b) ZDT4 test function. True Pareto Front
the populations to be included in the plot. region.
T6 test function
9
GeDEA−II
6 GeDEA
IBEA
5 NSGA−II
SPEA2
f2
True P.F.
4
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
f1
4
f2
6
8
10
12
20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12
f1
Figure 2.12: Test function KUR.
44 2. GeDEAII: A powerful and robust MOEA
1 1
0.9
0.9
0.8
HypervolumeIndicator
Hypervolume−Indicator
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7 0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.5 0.2
0.1
0.4
GeDEAII GeDEA SPEA2 NSGAII IBEA GeDEA−II GeDEA SPEA2 NSGA−II IBEA
1 1
0.9
0.9
HypervolumeIndicator
Hypervolume−Indicator
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
GeDEAII GeDEA SPEA2 NSGAII IBEA GeDEA−II GeDEA SPEA2 NSGA−II IBEA
1 1
0.9 0.98
0.8
0.96
HypervolumeIndicator
HypervolumeIndicator
0.7
0.94
0.6
0.92
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.88
0.3
0.2 0.86
0.1 0.84
GeDEAII GeDEA SPEA2 NSGAII IBEA GeDEAII GeDEA SPEA2 NSGAII IBEA
Figure 2.13: Box plots based on the Hypervolume metric. Each square contains six box plots
representing the distribution of Hypervolume values for the six algorithms. Results refer to
the ZDT test suite.
2.4 Comparison with Other Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms 45
GeDEAII
800 GeDEA
IBEA
700 NSGAII
SPEA2
600 True P.F.
500
f3
400
300
200
100
1000
0
0 200 500
400 600 0
800
f2
f1
(a) DTLZ1 test function. A proper scale in order for all the
populations to be included in the plot.
DTLZ1 test function
GeDEAII
100 GeDEA
IBEA
NSGAII
80 SPEA2
True P.F.
60
f3
40
20
100
0
0 20 50
40 60 80 100 0
f2
f1
GeDEAII
1800 GeDEA
IBEA
1600 NSGAII
1400 SPEA2
True P.F.
1200
1000
f3
800
600
400
200
2000
0
0 1000
500 1000 1500 2000 0
f2
f1
(a) DTLZ3 test function. A proper scale in order for all the
populations to be included in the plot.
DTLZ3 test function
GeDEAII
100 GeDEA
IBEA
NSGAII
80 SPEA2
True P.F.
60
f3
40
20
100
0
0 20 50
40 60 80 0
100
f2
f1
GeDEAII
2.5 GeDEA
IBEA
NSGAII
2 SPEA2
True P.F.
1.5
f3
0.5
0 1.5
0 1
0.5 0.5
1 0
1.5
f2
f1
GeDEAII GeDEAII
GeDEA 1.5 GeDEA
100
IBEA IBEA
NSGAII NSGAII
80 SPEA2 SPEA2
True P.F. True P.F.
1
60
f3
f3
40
0.5
20
100 1.5
0 50 0 1
0 20 40 0 0.5 0.5
60 80 100 0 1 1.5 0
f2 f2
f1 f1
(a) DTLZ6 test function. A proper scale in (b) DTLZ6 test function. True Pareto Front region.
order for all the populations to be included
in the plot.
1 1
0.9995 0.99
0.999
HypervolumeIndicator
HypervolumeIndicator
0.98
0.9985
0.97
0.998
0.96
0.9975
0.95
0.997
0.94
0.9965
GeDEAII GeDEA SPEA2 NSGAII IBEA GeDEAII GeDEA SPEA2 NSGAII IBEA
1
1
0.99
0.95
0.98
HypervolumeIndicator
HypervolumeIndicator
0.9
0.97
0.85
0.96
0.95 0.8
0.94
0.75
0.93
0.7
GeDEAII GeDEA SPEA2 NSGAII IBEA GeDEAII GeDEA SPEA2 NSGAII IBEA
1 1
0.995
0.9
0.99
HypervolumeIndicator
HypervolumeIndicator
0.985 0.8
0.98
0.7
0.975
0.6
0.97
0.965
0.5
0.96
GeDEAII GeDEA SPEA2 NSGAII IBEA GeDEAII GeDEA SPEA2 NSGAII IBEA
0.9
HypervolumeIndicator
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Figure 2.21: Box plots based on the Hypervolume metric. Each square contains six box plots
representing the distribution of Hypervolume values for the six algorithms. Results refer to
the DTLZ test suite.
on the preceding test functions. This is due to the fact that the variation range of
the decision variables was doubled when compared to the original one. Moreover,
the presence of the outlier, negligible from a statistical point of view, affects the
median value. As far as DTLZ1 test function is concerned, GeDEAII is able to
reach the True Pareto Front unlike the competitors. Performance of GeDEAII are
at the same level of those of the competitors on DTLZ2 test function, whereas it is
once again the only MOEA among those investigated able to reach the True Pareto
Front of the DTLZ3 test function. GeDEAII shows similar behaviors to those of the
competitors on DTLZ4 and DTLZ4 test functions. Particularly remarkable are the
performance of our algorithm when the last two test functions of the DTLZ test
suite are considered. GeDEAII is able to reach the True Pareto Fronts, whereas the
competitors remain trapped in the local Pareto Approximation Sets, as shown in
Figure2.19 and 2.20(a).
Finally, box plots prove, in general, that the performance of GeDEAII are
superior to those of the competitors also as far as the repeatability of the results is
concerned.
52 2. GeDEAII: A powerful and robust MOEA
2.5 Conclusions
In this chapter the writer has presented GeDEAII, an improved multiobjective
evolutionary algorithm that employs novel genetic operators compared to its prede
cessor GeDEA as well as a new technique for adapt itself to different multiobjective
problems. Extensive numerical comparisons of GeDEAII with GeDEA and with
NSGAII, SPEA2 and IBEA, three stateoftheart recently proposed algorithms,
have been carried out on various test problems. Moreover, optimization difficulties
have been enhanced further, in order to test the robustness of the codes. The key
results of the comparison are:
• GeDEAII reaches the True Pareto fronts on all of the investigated test prob
lems, while covering them in a satisfactory manner.
• GeDEAII outperforms both its predecessor and the competitors on all the
test problems investigated.
This chapter provides the basic classification of the most common shape defor
mation techniques employed in the context of the aerodynamic shape optimization.
Finally, a brief introduction to Altair HyperMorph is presented, which is the mor
phing tool chosen by AgustaWestland and the University of Padova to be used in
their optimization research program.
53
54 3. Parameterization techniques for 3D shape optimization in aerodynamics
Introduction to CFD
4.1 Introduction
Even though a univocal definition of CFD does not exist, here we can state
that CFD deals with the simulation of fluids engineering systems using modeling
(mathematical physical problem formulation) and numerical methods (discretiza
tion methods, solvers, numerical parameters, and grid generations, etc.). CFD
provides a numerical approximation to the equations that govern fluid motion.
Application of the CFD to analyze a fluid problem requires the following steps.
First, the mathematical equations describing the fluid flow are written. These
are usually a set of partial differential equations.
These equations are then discretized to produce a numerical analogue of the
equations.
The domain is then divided into small grids or elements.
Finally, the initial conditions and the boundary conditions of the specific
problem are used to solve these equations. The solution method can be direct or
iterative. In addition, certain control parameters are used to control the convergence,
stability, and accuracy of the method.
All CFD codes contain three main elements:
• A flow solver, which is used to solve the governing equations of the flow
subject to the conditions provided. There are four different methods used as
a flow solver:
57
58 4. Introduction to CFD
• A postprocessor, which is used to manage the data and show the results in
graphical and easy to read format.
In this chapter we are mainly concerned with the flow solver part of CFD, in
particular by paying attention on the system of equations to be solved. A brief
description of the RANS technique and of the finitevolume method will be finally
undertaken.
In the threedimensional space, the Eq. 4.1 assumes the following form:
∂ρ∆x∆y∆z
= (ρ u)∆y∆z + (ρ v)∆x∆z + (ρ w)∆x∆y
∂t
∂(ρu)
− (ρ u) + ∆x ∆y∆z
∂x
(4.2)
∂(ρv)
− (ρ v) + ∆y ∆x∆z
∂y
∂(ρw)
− (ρ w) + ∆z ∆x∆y
∂z
4.2 Governing equations 59
By using the substantive derivative8 concept, the mass continuity equation assumes
the general form:
Dρ
+ ρ(∇ · v) = 0. (4.6)
Dt
8 The substantial derivative is a derivative taken along a path moving with velocity v, and is often
used in fluid mechanics and classical mechanics. It describes the time rate of change of some quantity
(such as heat or momentum) by following it, while moving with a space and timedependent velocity
field. For example, in fluid dynamics, take the case that the velocity field under consideration is the
flow velocity itself, and the quantity of interest is the temperature of the fluid. Then the material
derivative describes the temperature evolution of a certain fluid parcel in time, as it is being moved
along its pathline (trajectory) while following the fluid flow. The total or substantial derivative assumes
the following mathematical expression, for a scalar, ϕ, on the left, or a vector, u, on the right:
Dϕ ∂ϕ Du ∂u
= + v · ∇ ϕ, = + v · ∇u
Dt ∂t Dt ∂t
60 4. Introduction to CFD
...the net force on a particle is equal to the time rate of change of its linear momentum p
in an inertial reference frame.
Introduzione alla CFD 1.4 Equazioni che governano il
is given the following mathematical expression:
IL METODO DEI VOLUMI FINITI 2a legge
~F = m ~a (4.7)
r r
Seconda legge di Newton: F = ma
Let one apply the principle stated in Eq. 4.7 to the infinitesimal, space fixed control
volume depicted La in Figureora
si applichi 4.2.
al The forces
volume to be (infinitesimo
di controllo considerede fisso
are the superficial forces risulta
in dire
nello spazio) di seguito considerato.
risultante sfor
agenti lungo x
volume)
σxx = − p + τxx
σyy = − p + τyy
σzz = − p + τzz
∂u ∂u ∂v ∂w
τxx = 2µ +λ + +
∂x ∂x ∂y ∂z
∂v ∂u ∂v ∂w
τyy = 2µ + λ + +
∂y ∂x ∂y ∂z
∂z ∂u ∂v ∂w (4.13)
τzz = 2µ + λ + +
∂z ∂x ∂y ∂z
∂v ∂u
τxy = τyx = µ +
∂x ∂y
∂w ∂u
τxz = τzx = µ +
∂x ∂z
∂w ∂v
τyz = τzy = µ +
∂y ∂z
9ANewtonian fluid (named after Isaac Newton) is a fluid whose shear stress τ versus strain rate
∂u
∂y curve is linear and passes through the origin. The constant of proportionality is known as the
dynamic viscosity µ.
10 A fluid whose properties are not dependent on the direction along which they are measured.
62 4. Introduction to CFD
By substituting relations given in 4.13, in Eq. 4.11 and 4.12, one can obtain the
NavierStokes equations.
Du ∂p ∂ ∂u ∂u ∂v ∂w
ρ =− + 2µ +λ + +
Dt ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂z
∂ ∂u ∂v ∂ ∂u ∂w
+ ∑ Fx
body f orces
µ + + µ +
∂y ∂y ∂x ∂z ∂z ∂x
Dv ∂p ∂ ∂v ∂u ∂v ∂w
ρ =− + 2µ + λ + +
Dt ∂y ∂y ∂y ∂x ∂y ∂z
(4.14)
∂ ∂u ∂v ∂ ∂v ∂w
+ ∑ Fy
body f orces
µ + + µ +
∂x ∂y ∂x ∂z ∂z ∂y
Dw ∂p ∂ ∂w ∂u ∂v ∂w
ρ =− + 2µ +λ + +
Dt ∂z ∂z ∂z ∂x ∂y ∂z
∂ ∂u ∂w ∂ ∂v ∂w
+ ∑ Fz
body f orces
µ + + µ +
∂x ∂z ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂y
or, after accounting for the gravity as a body force, and developing the substan
tial derivatives,
∂u ∂u ∂u ∂u ∂p
ρ +u +v +w =−
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x
2
∂ u ∂2 u ∂2 u
+µ + 2 + 2 + ρgx
∂x2 ∂y ∂z
∂v ∂v ∂v ∂v ∂p
ρ +u +v +w =−
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂y
2 (4.15)
∂ v ∂2 v ∂2 v
+µ + 2 + 2 + ρgy
∂x2 ∂y ∂z
∂w ∂w ∂w ∂w ∂p
ρ +u +v +w =−
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂z
2
∂ w ∂2 w ∂2 w
+µ + 2 + 2 + ρgz .
∂x2 ∂y ∂z
Finally, the vector form of the Momentum equation is presented in Eq.4.16, in
order to draw a parallel with the Eq. 4.6
∂v
ρ + v · ∇v = −∇ p + µ∇2 v + (λ + µ)∇v + f. (4.16)
∂t
Figure 4.3: An infinitesimal fluid control volume. The Work contribution to the Energy
equation.
Let one consider both work and energy terms, separately. The forces considered
are the superficial forces (normal and tangential to the body). Work done (per time
unit) by the normal and tangential stresses acting on the control volume depicted
Figure 4.3, along xdirection, is given in Eq. 4.18 and 4.19, respectively.
∂uσxx
uσxx + ∆x ∆y∆z − uσxx ∆y∆z Work done by the normal stresses acting on
∂x
the control volume along xdirection
(4.18)
∂uτyx
uτyx + ∆y ∆x∆z − uτyx ∆x∆z Work done by the tangential stresses acting on
∂y
∂uτzx
uτzx + ∆z ∆x∆y − uτzx ∆x∆y the control volume along x direction
∂z
(4.19)
By adding the terms in Eq. 4.18 and 4.19 and dividing by the volume, one can
obtain
∂uσxx ∂uτyx ∂uτzx
+ + Resulting Work done by the superficial stress
∂x ∂y ∂z (4.20)
along xdirection (per volume and time unit)
Similarly, along ydirection and ydirection, the Work done by superficial forces
is, respectively,
64 4. Introduction to CFD
Figure 4.4: An infinitesimal fluid control volume. The Heat contribution to the Energy
equation.
∂q x
qx + ∆x ∆y∆z − q x ∆y∆z Heat flux along xdirection
∂x (4.23)
Similarly, along ydirection and zdirection, the Heat flux is, respectively,
∂qy
qy + ∆y ∆x∆z − qy ∆x∆z Heat flux along ydirection
∂y (4.24)
∂qz
qz + ∆z ∆x∆y − qz ∆x∆y Heat flux along zdirection
∂z (4.25)
By adding the terms in Eq. 4.23, 4.24 and 4.25, and dividing by the volume, one
can obtain the overall heat flux crossing control volume in Figure 4.4:
∂q x ∂qy ∂qz
+ + (4.26)
∂x ∂y ∂z
4.2 Governing equations 65
By gathering all the terms in Eqs. 4.20, 4.21, 4.22 and 4.26, the First Thermody
namic law, can be stated as:
p 1 2 p
u + v2 + w2 = E + (4.31)
h = e+ +
ρ 2 ρ
where h is the fluid total enthalpy, whereas e is the internal energy.
By neglecting kinetic contribution,
h = hst = c p T (4.32)
DT ∂ ∂T ∂ ∂T ∂ ∂T ∂p
ρCp = k + k + k + +Φ (4.33)
Dt ∂x x ∂y y ∂z z ∂t
Figure 4.5: Laminartoturbulent transition over a submarine hull (image taken from the
NavSource Naval History website).
coefficient Flusso
onceturbolento:
the transition
più dissipativo is occurred
del flusso laminare is clearly visible.
Upper Surface
Laminar to
turbulent
transition Lower Surface
XFOIL Output
Figure 4.6: Skin friction coefficient of NACA 23012 airfoil. XFOIL output
where u0 (t) represents the fluctuating part, whereas ū is the average part.
Two questions now arise:
2. In the case that turbulence cannot be directly computed due to computational limi
tations, how can we take into account its effects?
Induced
instability
u (t ) = u + u ﾢ
(t )
Figure 4.8:
TheDirect
images Numerical Simulation
below are slices from 256 of3 DNSs
two reacting
in which flows
a blob (image available
of fuel reacts with at website
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/mie/faculty/debk/Research/dns.html
oxidant in a onestep, irreversible reaction. The flow is incompressible,). and the
fluid properties are constant. The plots show that the reaction zones are thin,
even when the reaction is isothermal, and become thinner when the reaction
rate depends on temperature. Because the reaction zones are so thin,
• Large eddytechiques
modeling simulation (LES):
involving Largewhich
averaging, eddyare
simulation
common foris nonreacting
a technique in which
theturbulence,
smallest cannot
scalesbeofused.
the flow are removed through a filtering operation,
and their effect modelled using subgrid scale models. This allows the largest
Mixture Fraction Isothermal Reaction Rate
and most important scales of the turbulence to be resolved, while greatly
reducing the computational cost incurred by the smallest scales. This method
requires greater computational resources than RANS methods,
1 di 3
but is far
29/12/2010 15:09
Figure 4.9: Volume rendered image of a Large Eddy Simulation of a nonpremixed swirl
flame (taken from [86]).
Figure 4.10: Viscous wake impinging a stator vane row of an aeroengine LP turbine. (Axial
velocity perturbation magnitude coloured)(taken from [20])
Since the RANS approach implemented in the CFD codes Fluent will be exploited
in the following introduced optimization loop, it is now deeply discussed.
RANS models can be divided into two broad approaches:
* Boussinesq hypothesis14 : This method involves using an algebraic equation
for the Reynolds stresses which include determining the turbulent viscosity,
and depending on the level of sophistication of the model, solving transport
equations for determining the turbulent kinetic energy κ and dissipation (e,
14 Joseph Valentin Boussinesq (13 March 1842  19 February 1929) was a French mathematician and
physicist who made significant contributions to the theory of hydrodynamics, vibration, light, and
heat.
4.3 Turbulence Modeling 71
Let consider now the 2D version of continuity equation expressed in Eq. 4.5
for incompressible flows. It assumes the following expression:
∂u ∂v
+ = 0. (4.35)
∂x ∂y
At this point, let substitute the expression of u given in Eq. 4.34 in each velocity
term of the previous equation, that is, let substitute each instantaneous quantity
into its averaged and fluctuating components fields.
One obtains
∂ (ū + u0 (t)) ∂ (v̄ + v0 (t))
+ = 0. (4.36)
∂x ∂y
Timeaveraging this equation yields,
It is worth noting that the temporal mean of the velocity fluctuating part is
Z t+ T h i
u0 (t) = lim u(t) − u dt = 0 (4.38)
T →∞ t
∂u ∂u ∂u0 (t) ∂u
= + =
∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x (4.39)
uv = (ū + u0 (t)) + (v̄ + v0 (t)) = ūv̄ + u0 (t)v0 (t)
∂u
∂x + ∂v
∂y =0 (4.40)
1 ∂ p̄ ∂ū ∂v̄
∂u
∂t+ ∂uu + ∂uv
= − + ∂
ν + ∂
ν
∂x ∂y
ρ ∂x h ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y
∂[u0 (t)u0 (t)] ∂[u0 (t)v0 (t)]
i
∂ū ∂ū
+ ∂x ν ∂x + ∂y ν ∂y −
∂ ∂
∂x + ∂y
(4.41)
∂v
∂t + ∂uv + ∂vv
= − 1ρ ∂∂yp̄ + ∂x
∂ ∂v̄
ν ∂x + ∂y∂ ∂v̄
ν ∂y
∂x ∂y
h 0 0
∂[v0 (t)v0 (t)]
i
∂[u (t)v (t)]
+ ∂x
∂
ν ∂∂xū + ∂
∂y ν ∂ū
∂y − ∂x + ∂y
and
1 ∂ p̄
∂v ∂uv ∂vv ∂ ∂v̄ ∂ ∂v̄ ∂ ∂ū
+ + =− + ν + ν + ν
∂t ∂x ∂y ρ ∂y ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂x ∂x
" # (4.42)
∂[u0 (t)v0 (t)] ∂[v0 (t)v0 (t)]
∂ ∂ū
+ ν − +
∂y ∂y ∂x ∂y
At this point, closing the previous RANS equations requires modeling the
Reynold’s stress Rij 15
Joseph Boussinesq was the first practitioner of this, introducing the concept of
eddy viscosity. The Boussinesq assumption states that the Reynolds stress tensor,
Rij , is proportional to the mean strain rate tensor, Sij∗ , and can be written in the
following way:
2
Rij = 2 µt Sij∗ − ρkδij (4.43)
3
where µt is a scalar property called the eddy viscosity. The same equation can
be written more explicitly as:
∂u 2 ∂ρ
−ρu0 u0 = 2µt −
∂x 3 k
∂v 2 ∂ρ
−ρv0 v0 = 2µt − (4.44)
∂y 3 k
0 0
∂v ∂v
−ρu v = µt +
∂x ∂y
The righthand side is analogous to Newton’s law of viscosity, except for the appear
ance of the turbulent or eddy viscosity µt and turbulent kinetic energy κ.
In Eq. 4.44, the turbulent momentum transport is assumed to be proportional
to the mean gradients of velocity. Similarly, the turbulent transport of temperature
is taken to be proportional to the gradient of the mean value of the transported
quantity. In other words,
15 The nonlinear term υi0 υ0j from the convective acceleration is known as the Reynolds stress,
∂T
−ρu0 T 0 = Γt
∂x
(4.45)
∂T
−ρv0 T 0 = Γt
∂y
∂u
∂x + ∂v
∂y =0 (4.46)
h i h i
∂u
∂t + ∂uu
∂x + ∂uv
∂y = − 1ρ ∂p
∂x +
∂
∂x (ν + νT ) ∂u
∂x i + ∂
∂y h ( ν + ν ) ∂v
T ∂y
h i
+ ∂x
∂
(ν + νT ) ∂x + ∂y (ν + νT ) ∂u
∂u ∂
∂y
h i h i (4.47)
∂v
∂t + ∂uv
∂x + ∂vv
∂y = − 1ρ ∂p
∂y +
∂
∂x (ν + νT ) ∂x
∂v
+ ∂y
∂
(ν + νT ) ∂v
∂y
h i h i
+ ∂x
∂
(ν + νT ) ∂u
∂x + ∂
∂y ( ν + ν ) ∂u
T ∂y
1 ∂p
∂v ∂uv ∂vv ∂ ν νT ∂v ∂ ν νT ∂v
+ + =− + + + +
∂t ∂x ∂y ρ ∂y ∂x Pr Pr T ∂x ∂y Pr Pr T ∂y
∂ ν νT ∂u ∂ ν νT ∂u
+ + + +
∂x Pr Pr T ∂x ∂y Pr Pr T ∂y
(4.48)
Eq. 4.46, 4.47 and 4.48 constitute respectively the Time averaged Continuity equa
tion, the Time averaged Momentum equation and the Time averaged Energy equation.
allows a two equation model to account for history effects like convection and
diffusion of turbulent energy.
The first transported variable is turbulent kinetic energy, κ. The second trans
ported variable in this case is the specific dissipation, ω. It is the variable that
determines the scale of the turbulence, whereas the first variable, κ, determines
the energy in the turbulence.
In particular, the SST (acronym for Shear Stress Transport) κ − ω turbulence
model [61] is a twoequation eddyviscosity model which has become very popular.
The shear stress transport (SST) formulation combines the best of two worlds. The
use of a κ − ω formulation in the inner parts of the boundary layer makes the
model directly usable all the way down to the wall through the viscous sublayer,
hence the SST κ − ω model can be used as a LowRe turbulence model without any
extra damping functions. The SST formulation also switches to a κ − e behaviour
in the freestream and thereby avoids the common κ − ω problem that the model
is too sensitive to the inlet freestream turbulence properties. Authors who use the
SST κ − ω model often merit it for its good behavior in adverse pressure gradients
and separating flow. The SST κ − ω model does produce a bit too large turbulence
levels in regions with large normal strain, like stagnation regions and regions with
strong acceleration. This tendency is much less pronounced than with a normal
κ − e model though.
The kinematic eddy viscosity is calculated as
a1 k
νT = (4.49)
max( a1 ω, SF2 )
∂k ∂k ∗ ∂ ∂k
+ Uj = Pk − β kω + (ν + σk νT ) (4.50)
∂t ∂x j ∂x j ∂x j
∂ω ∂ω 2 2 ∂ ∂ω
+ Uj = αS − βω + (ν + σω νT )
∂t ∂x j ∂x j ∂x j
(4.51)
1 ∂k ∂ω
+ 2(1 − F1 )σω2
ω ∂xi ∂xi
" √ !#2
2 k 500ν
F2 = tanh max ,
β∗ ωy y2 ω
∂Ui
Pk = min τij , 10β∗ kω
∂x j
( " √ ! #)4
k 500ν 4σω2 k
F1 = tanh min max , ,
β∗ ωy y2 ω CDkω y2
1 ∂k ∂ω
CDkω = max 2ρσω2 , 10−10
ω ∂xi ∂xi (4.52)
φ = φ1 F1 + φ2 (1 − F1 )
5
α1 = , α2 = 0.44
9
3
β1 = , β 2 = 0.0828
40
9
β∗ =
100
σk1 = 0.85, σk2 = 1
σω1 = 0.5, σω2 = 0.856
∂ρΦ
+ ∇ · (ρ~uΦ) = ∇ · (Γ∇Φ) + SΦ (4.53)
∂t }  {z }  {z } {z}
Source term
 {z
Convection term Di f f usion term
Transient term
where Γ is the diffusion coefficient or diffusivity.
control volume;
• The convection term, ∇ · (ρ~uΦ), accounts for the transport of Φ due to the
existence of the velocity field (note the velocity ~u multiplying Φ);
• The diffusion term, ∇ · (Γ∇Φ), accounts for the transport of Φ due to its
gradients;
• The source term, SΦ , accounts for any sources or sinks that either create
or destroy Φ. Any extra terms that cannot be cast into the convection or
diffusion terms are considered as source terms.
76 4. Introduction to CFD
∂Φ ∂uΦ ∂vΦ ∂wΦ ∂ ∂Φ
+ + + = Γ
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x ∂x
(4.54)
∂ ∂Φ ∂ ∂φ
+ Γ + Γ + SΦ
∂y ∂y ∂z ∂z
Figure 4.11: A representation of structured and unstructured mesh for the finitevolume
method (full symbols denote element vertices and open symbols at the center of the control
volumes denote computational nodes).
Figure 4.12: A comparison between a fully tetrahedral unstructured grid (ON THE LEFT)
and a viscous hybrid mesh (ON THE RIGHT).
Eq. 4.59 represents the algebrized or discretized form of the continuity equation.
Now let us consider an elemental control volume of the twodimensional structured
grid shown in Figure 4.13.
The centroid of the control volume is indicated by the point P, which is sur
rounded by the adjacent control volumes having their respective centroids indicated
4.5 The Finite Volume method: an overview 79
Figure 4.13: Control volume for the twodimensional continuity equation problem. Image
taken from [92]
by the points: east, E; west, W; north, N; and south, S. The control volume face
between points P and E is denoted by the area Aex . Subsequently, the rest of the
control volume faces are Aw x , Ay , and Ay , respectively.
n s
The analysis starts by introducing the control volume integration, which forms
the key step of the finitevolume method. Applying Gauss’ divergence theorem
yields the following expressions,
=0 =0
4
1
∑ ui Aix = ∆V ue Aex − uw Awx + un Anx − us Asx
z } { z } {
(4.60)
k =1
=0 =0
4
1 z } { z } {
∑ vi Ai = ∆V ve Ae − vw Aw +vn An − vs As
y y y y y
(4.61)
k =1
For the structured uniform grid arrangement, the projection areas Anx and Asx in
y y
the x direction, and the projection areas, Ae and Aw in the y direction, are zero.
Since the grid has been considered to be uniform, the face velocities ue , uw , vn , and
vs are located midway between each of the control volume centroids, which allows
us to determine the face velocities from the values located at the centroids of the
control volumes.
By assuming a linear velocity profile,
u P +u E u P + uW u P +u N u P +uS
ue = 2 uw = 2 un = 2 us = 2
uP + uE u P + uW uP + u N u P + uS
y y
Aex − x
Aw + An − As (4.62)
2 2 2 2
y y
From Figure 4.13, Aex = Aw
x = ∆y and A = A = ∆x, the above equation can
n s
then be expressed by
uP + uE u P + uW uP + u N u P + uS
∆y − ∆y + ∆x − ∆x (4.63)
2 2 2 2
and reduced to
u E + uW v N + vS
∆y + ∆x = 0 (4.64)
2∆x 2∆y
As just clarified in the abstract, the aim of this Thesis is to build up an auto
matic optimization procedure, applicable to aircraft and rotorcraft aerodynamic
components, and to prove the effectiveness of that procedure by performing
an optimization run on a real industrial product. To achieve the latter purpose,
AgustaWestland has chosen the ERICA tiltrotor intake configuration as a test
case. Therefore, it seems natural, at this point, to provide some notions about the
tiltrotor concept.
Moreover, for completeness of informations, a detailed survey of the most
promising techniques suitable for External Aerodynamic drag reduction is pro
vided. For conceptual clarity, the different devices will be classified based on
the kind of drag to be lowered. As far as their application is concerned, both
advantages and disadvantages will be discussed with critical sense. For a deeper
overview, reader is referred to the precious notes given in the Von Karman Instiute
Lecture Series “Flow Control: Fundamentals, Advances and Applications” [33].
81
����� 82 5. A Survey of the Techniques for Drag Reduction
����
Figure 5.1: An artistic impression of the ERICA concept (taken from [37]).
����
Nacelle
Angle Conversion
� Mode
0o
Aeroplane Mode
CRUI
Figure 5.2: Different Viaggio
ERICA della
possible Ricerca in Italia
configurations (takenfrom [66]).
11
�����������
���
5.2 Power requirements 3.2 Introduction to Intake Aerodynamics
83
FigureFigure ERICA
3.3:tiltable
5.3: ERICA wingtiltable wing
(taken from [1].
[37]).
3.2 Introduction
flexibility to Intake
that allows the minimization of the groundAerodynamics
infrastructure needs.
FromPower
5.2 the propulsive system point of view, a tiltrotor is equivalent to a
requirements
turboproptrusted aircraft. The attractiveness of turbopropeller engines as com
pared Thewithpurpose of an engines
turbofan aircraft, such
liesasinthetheir
futurehigher
European civil tiltrotor
bypass ratio based on
and thereby the
ERICA architecture, is to transport people from place to place
higher propulsive eﬃciency consequent to the smaller exhaust velocities. in a short time. To
do this, it must take off from land, climb to a desired flying altitude, cruise at a
As all the other airbreathing engines, turbopropellers must be supplied with
prescribed distance, manoeuvre, descend and finally land at the desired destination.
air An
from the atmosphere in which the aircraft is operating. This supply duty is
aircraft is considered to have merit insofar as it performs these things quickly,
thesafely
aim of
and,thebyair
no intake.
means the least important, with the minimum expenditure of
The intake aerodynamic
energy. The quantitative measure behavior
of the waycan be roughly
it performs understood
such function is known byasanalyzing
thetheinteraction
performance between theA simple
of the aircraft. intakeand andaccurate method
two ﬂow to understand
streams from an it is undisturbed
the
energy method
condition [36]. This
far ahead frommethod is based on the fact that, in steady flight, a power
the aircraft:
balance exists for an aircraft. As far as cruise flight condition is concerned, the
lift Internal
1. force L counterbalances the airplane
ﬂow: it enters weightand
the intake W, whereas thrust T forcetask
the aerodynamic has to
is to mini
exactly overcome the total drag force D. Therefore, two equations must be fulfilled,
mize the total pressure loss and maximize the ﬂow uniformity with which
in the case of steady flight condition:
it reaches the engine face. This properties are vital from the engine perfor
mance and stability pointWof= view;
L T=D (5.1)
By External
2. multiplying the
ﬂow:second member
it passes of Eq. 5.1
around thebyintake
the factor V (speed),
as part of theantotal
equation
ﬂow over the
between power quantities is found, that is
whole aircraft. It is important by means of the intakeaircraft integration
and its inﬂuence on the aircraftVD =drag.
VT (5.2)
where
The VD isofcalled
subject required
intake power, whereas
aerodynamics is the available
VT study
is the of both the Ifinternal
power. steady and the
external ﬂow as deﬁned in this way, with the scope of quantiﬁed their inﬂuence
on the aircraft eﬃciency and performances.
The system requirements, for an aircraft intake design, depend on the aircraft
mission speciﬁcation. In the follows the main design goals for intake aerodynamics
are summarized:
84 5. A Survey of the Techniques for Drag Reduction
level flight is to be maintained, these powers must be equal [62]. Eq. 5.2 clearly
shows that the power required for level flight directly depends on the drag force.
Hence, a reduction of the drag force will translate into lower power consumption.
Conventionally, the total power required by the aircraft during steady flight
is split into three contributes. These powerabsorbing elements are, according to
Gessow’s terminology:
• Induceddrag power;
• Parasitedrag power.
Induceddrag power is the fraction required to produce lift, and can be reduced
by optimizing the shape and geometry of the lifting parts; it is due to both rotorcraft
body and rotors.
Profiledrag power is the power required to drag the propeller blades through
the air, and can be lowered by means of a proper shaping of the blades.
Parasitedrag power is, generally speaking, the power required to move a solid
object through a fluid. As far as tiltrotor is concerned, this power arises from the
necessity of move the airframe and the rotating nonlifting components through
the air.
Parasitic drag is made up of many components, such as pressure drag, skin friction
drag and interference drag, which will be introduced in the next Section. In addition,
assuming that both transmission losses and various auxiliary equipment losses
account for a fixed fraction of the required power PR , the total shaft power PS
required of the engines is
PR
PS = + PA (5.3)
ηT
where PA is the power required to operate accessories, and ηT is the transmis
sion efficiency.
Moreover, installation of the engines on the airframe generally results in a per
formance deterioration when compared to the engine manufacturer’s performance
specifications. Losses associated with the engine installation can be divided into
inlet losses, exhaust losses, and losses due to bleed air extraction (e.g. air extraction
from the compressor for antiice protection). Engine installation effects are not
to be forgotten, since they play a smaller but not negligible role in the overall
power expenditure (as shown in Table 5.1) and they will be evaluated and reported
in a separate document. As high speed typical of cruise condition are reached,
the role played by parasite drag in the overall power balance becomes more and
more fundamental. Hence, a great reduction in power requirement is expected
to be achieved by improving the aerodynamic efficiency of the tilt rotor fuselage.
In Table 5.1, an example of power required breakdown is provided, showing the
different contributions to the overall power balance.
Table 5.1 clearly shows that fuselage parasite drag and bodyinduced drag
provide by far the greatest contributions to the overall power balance. Hence, an
airframe drag reduction is expected to be useful to gain an actual power reduction.
5.2 Power requirements 85
% Required Power
Engine Installation 8%
Fuselage 37%
Rotors (induced, viscous, vortex) 15%
Transmission 3%
Accessories 7%
Body Induced 30%
Fuselage and body induced component Equivalent flatplate area, f [m2 ] Contribution [%]
Base fuselage 0.627 19.5
Fuselagewing fairings 0.128 4.1
Sponsons16 0.403 12.5
Wings 0.691 21.6
Nacelles and spinners 0.211 6.6
Rotor hub and stubs 0.941 29.3
Fin 0.122 3.8
Tailplane 0.090 2.7
TOTAL 3.213 100
Table 5.2: Fuselage and bodyinduced drag breakdown. (NICETRIP wind tunnel tests,
2008. [67])
16 Sponsons are projections from the sides of an aircraft or helicopter, for protection, stability, or the
mounting of equipment such as armaments or lifeboats, etc. They are often used in larger helicopters
where the internal space of the sponson can be used for fuel or to house landing gear without
reducing cargo or passenger space in the fuselage
86 5. A Survey of the Techniques for Drag Reduction
As can be clearly seen from Table 5.2, rotor hub and stubs, wings and base
fuselage represent by far the greatest contributions to parasite and bodyinduced
drag. The next Section will provide an overview of the several drag reduction
techniques employable mainly on nonrotating components of a nextgeneration
TiltRotor.
4. Lift induced drag due to the conserved circulation developed around the
wings;
Wave
Roughness
Skin friction
Miscellaneous
Interference
Afterbody
Liftinduced
drag
Figure 5.4: Contributions of different drag sources for a typical transport aircraft (taken
from [1]).
The greatest contribution arises from turbulent skin friction drag, a fact that
has justified the impetus for most of the friction drag reduction work that will be
described here. The next most significant contribution comes from the lift induced
drag and this, together with the friction drag, accounts for about 85% of the total
aircraft drag. Interference drag, wave drag, and miscellaneous effects account for
5.4 Skin friction drag reduction 87
the remainder. In particular, wave drag will not be taken into account since it plays
a negligible role in the overall drag of a tiltrotor fuselage.
1. The first consists in stabilizing the laminar boundary layer (BL) as to prevent
or delay transition to a turbulent one. In fact, because of the greater velocity
gradient characterizing turbulent layer than in a laminar one (due to the
more agitated motion in a turbulent flow), the frictional effects are more
severe for a turbulent BL;
The two precedent methods are not in conflict with each other, but are com
plementary since the former are exploitable on the wings, where the boundary
layer, at least near the leading edge, keeps laminar, whereas the latter is applied
mainly on fuselage where turbulent boundary layer exists. As regards the first class
of methods, they can be divided into active and passive, depending on whether
additional power from the propulsion units is required or not.
• Streamwise instability;
around the leading edge, where acceleration is high. It is a major concern for high
Reynolds number flow in subsonic transport aircraft, such as a Tiltrotor.
Leading edge contamination (also calledfuselage
Tiltrotor attachmentdrag contamination) is the third
line reduction
TLRG0000K019

cause of transition, and by no means the least. Attachment line contamination is
the phenomenon by which turbulentTechnology Review
air at the in support
wing root (comingoffrom a turbulent Rev. A
Clean Sky project
boundary layer on the fuselage) is propagated along the attachment line of a swept
Pag. 74
leading edge, causing the flow over the whole of the wing (or empennage surface)
of 76
to become turbulent. In the case of an engine nacelle, which has no leading edge
sweep, this kind of transition mechanism is not present.
These three sources of transition, which are frequently found together and
prematurely trigger transition near the leading edge, are well documented in the
open literature ([85, 47, 99]) and are depicted in Figure 5.5.
AGTEC168 Rev. 07
5.4 Skin friction drag reduction 89
• The results obtained depend very much on the state of the surface and on
the absence of contaminations (e.g. insects or dust), which is a not negligible
issue when considering its application to Tiltrotor wings;
• Acoustic waves and vibrations on the wings and tail assembly could impair
the effectiveness of LFC system, since laminar to turbulent transitions would
be promoted [48]. This is an issue for Tiltrotor aircrafts, since tiltable rotors
are mounted on the wings;
tolerances must be followed and some kind of in flight cleaning system or Pag.leading
74
of 76
edge protection must be employed. Moreover, deicer inserts on shields for ice
protection and supplementary nozzles for protection from insects and ice are
required.
Figure 5.6: LFC system designed by McDonnell Co. (taken from [48]).
In Figure 5.6, the Douglas concept for LFC application is showed; it involves
an electronbeamperforated titanium sheet bonded to a fiberglasscorrugated
substructure. Suction was applied from just below the attachment line back to
the front spar. A Krueger shield was used at the leading edge to deflect or block
insects. TKS antiice system was used on the Krueger shield, and a spray nozzle
system was appended to the back of the Krueger shield as a backup system for
90 5. A Survey of the Techniques for Drag Reduction
antiinsect and antiice protection of the leading edge. The Krueger shield was
typically retracted after reaching an altitude of 6000 ft, with the goal of leaving an
insectfree leading edge for cruise flight. This LFC system was employed during
the Jetstar LFC LeadingEdge Flight test Program (19831986) [41] and showed the
effectiveness of LFC systems for airline service.
• Only true savings, including the effect of the system for cleaning the leading
edge required to prevent insect contamination, ice formation, and the pro
duction costs of such wings will produce tangible benefits where the Direct
Operating Costs is concerned;
• The high production costs of such a wing system. For example, to have a
laminar upper surface it must not have any roughness greater than 0.1 mm
[75];
• Suction
foris required only
relaminarization couldin the leadingedge
typically region,greater
be an order of magnitude in order to suppress the
than those
required for LFC. Finally, LFC is a capability
crossflow vortices and leadingedge contamination; that is designed to beneﬁt the
by Universita degli Studi di Padova on 09/02/08. For personal use only.
Figure 1 Schematic of NLF, LFC, and HLFC concepts for wing (Collier 1993). Diagrams show
suction locations and surface pressure coefﬁcient (C p ) versus chordwise extent (x/c).
Figure 5.7: NLF, LFC and HLFC concepts for wing (taken from [48]).
pressure gradient as with NFL. In this way, a larger wing sweep can be achieved
for transonic flight than with NLF, and the weight penalties are not as great as
for LFC. As far as its disadvantages is concerned, it has to be underlined that
the effectiveness of this system can be impaired by cloudy conditions or rainy
weather (because of the lost of laminarity during these conditions). Moreover,
contamination due to fuselage boundary layer can be a real concern. Finally,
the maintainability and reliability of suction surfaces and the optimization of
suction rate and distribution remain the main problems regarding this preventing
transition method.
5.4.4 Riblets
An alternative approach toTiltrotor
the reduction of skin
fuselage dragfriction is based not upon
reduction
TLRG0000K019
trying to maintain laminar flow, but on attempting  to modify the turbulence in
some way so as to reduce friction. Possible
Technology approaches
Review may of
in support be passive, as in Rev. A
Clean Sky
the case of the riblets and large eddy breakup project
devices (LEBUs) etc., or active as in
the case of the synthetic boundary layer. Over the years, extensive research
of 76
onPag. 74
riblets has been carried out at the NASA Langley Research Centre (USA) and
ONERA/CERT (France). Riblets, (microgrooves on the surface, aligned to the free
stream direction, see Figure 5.8), have been studied deeply ([70, 95, 96]) and the
results from these studies have been sufficiently promising and encouraging that
the concept has been evaluated in flight tests. Despite worldwide research during
the last 15 years, detailed mechanisms by which riblets reduce the wall shear
stress are not clearly understood. Several mechanisms have been suggested which
include: weakening of the bursting process near the wall, significant retardation
of the flow in the groove valley dominated by viscous effects, an increase in the
sub layer thickness inhibition or restriction of spanwise motion of longitudinal
vortices [70]. It is likely that many of the above flow features have their subtle role
in altering the wall shear stress. It seems that highly turbulent activity of boundary
layer is “lowered” in such a way that skin friction is reduced. Apart from these
fluiddynamics considerations, the aerodynamic advantage procured by riblets
has been clearly demonstrated during many windtunnel and flight tests. It is
worth noting that, despite the increase in the wetted area, a net drag reduction
5.4 Skin friction drag reduction 93
occurs when riblets technique is exploited. This is the reason why an optimization
procedure has to be employed, when designing the correct riblets shape.
The main advantages of their application are:
• Their effectiveness is not affected by pressure gradient [70];
• They are easy to install: plastic riblet films with symmetric V grooves manu
factured by the 3M© are suitable to this purpose.
On the other hand , the disadvantages are
• The microscopic structures of riblets are highly sensitive to dirt and mechani
cal degradation;
5.4.5 LEBUs
Another passive techniques aiming at modifying turbulent boundary layer
structure in such way that there is a net drag reduction, is represented by Large
Eddy Break Up (LEBU) devices. They are designed to alter, sever, or breakup
the large eddies that form in the outer regions of a turbulent boundary layer.
A typical arrangement consists of one or more splitter plates placed in tandem
in the outer part of a turbulent boundary layer, as sketched in Figure 5.9. An
analytical attempt to explain the mechanisms involved with the LEBUs is noted
here. Essentially, the LEBU acts as an airfoil on a gusty atmosphere, and a vortex
unwinding mechanism is activated. The vorticity shed from the LEBU’s trailing
edge because of an incident line vortex convected past the device tends to cancel
the effect of the incoming vortex and to reduce the velocity fluctuations near the
wall. The main advantage characterizing LEBU is that their effectiveness seems not
to be affected by adverse pressure gradient [35]. However, they are not effective at
Reynolds and Mach numbers typical of flight conditions [35]. Moreover, what is
difficult is to ensure that the device own skinfriction and pressure drag do not
exceed the savings.
Pag. 74
of 76
Figure 5.9: Sketch of a tandem arrangement of a LEBU device (taken from [35]).
AGTEC168 Rev. 07
total drag associated with this kind of flow can be split into two components. First,
the pressure drag arises because of the reduced pressures on the lower surface of
the fuselage. In addition, there is a considerable loss of flow energy in the form
of rotational kinetic energy of the vortex structures and this is manifested as a
vortex drag component. Depending on the geometry of the aircraft, the relative
contributions of each may vary.
In the following, a description of the main flow and boundary layer control
devices, suitable for either fixed wing or rotarywings aircraft will be provided.
Figure 5.10: The vortex wake behind an upswept afterbody (taken from [89]).
mixing, reduction of wall skin friction, and virtual aero shaping. In particular,
as far as separation is concerned, there is a strong motivation to manipulate or
delay its occurrence, since it means preventing large energy losses and in most
applications lift loss and drag increase.
As a practical tool, they are generally more attractive than steady blowing
or suction (e.g. LFC) because they do not require any complex fluid ducting or
plumbing system. Furthermore, synthetic jets have been found to achieve similar
effectiveness to steady blowing or suction with considerably smaller momentum
(and hence lower energy inputs) [81].
The synthetic jet is a zero net mass flux device, which consists of an oscillating
diaphragm inside a sealed cavity with a small orifice or slit through which an
air jet enters (suctioning) and exits (blowing) due to the diaphragm oscillatory
displacement. The expelled fluid forms a shear layer with the surrounding fluid
that results in a series of rolling vortices. If the oscillation of the diaphragm is
sufficient in amplitude and frequency, the vortices have sufficient inertia to escape
reentrainment into the cavity resulting in an air jet consisting of propagating
vortices [6, 63].
Even though the net mass change of fluid through the cavity during each cycle
of the diaphragm motion is zero, the net momentum transferred into the fluid is
nonzero.
Zero net mass flux synthetic jet actuators produce an air jet with unique effects,
which are impossible to be obtained with steady suction or blowing. Figure 5.11
shows a schematic of a typical
Questo documento contiene synthetic jet or “zero
dati ed informazioni di net massAgusta
proprietà flux”chedevice.
ne vieta la divulgazione e
la riproduzione parziale o totale senza la sua autorizzazione scritta.
The vortical structures promote boundary layer mixing and hence momentum
This document contains data and information which are the property of Agusta. Agusta forbids its circulation and
exchange between the outer and inner parts of the boundary layer. The enhanced
reproduction, whether in part or in its entirety, without a written authorization from the company.
mixing AGTEC168
causes theRev. reattachment
07 of the separated shear layer. Hence, the actuators
act as turbulators, energizing the boundary layer and thus eliminating massive
separation.
Synthetic jet systems have been produced using speakers, compressed air, air
pumps, and bimorph diaphragms. All of these techniques add weight, require real
estate, and add complexity to an aeroplane, making these options difficult to be
used in practice.
96 5. A Survey of the Techniques for Drag Reduction
AGTEC168 Rev. 07
5.5 Pressure drag reduction 97
Figure 5.12: Iso surfaces of the instantaneous vorticity magnitude. (a) Uncontrolled case;
(b) controlled case. (taken from [98])
The effectiveness of synthetic jets for boundary layer flow control under an
adverse pressure gradient condition was investigated as well, by means of experi
mental tests presented in [45]. The enhancement of this effectiveness by the TS
instability waves was noticed and analyzed. The conclusions are summarized as
follows [93].
• The synthetic jets are effective when the forcing frequency is low, in the range
of TS frequencies;
• The effectiveness of synthetic jets may depend more on the forcing frequency
rather than on the forcing voltage;
• SyntheticQuesto
jets can play contiene
documento dual roles dati edin resistingdi separation
informazioni proprietà Agusta bycheaccelerating
ne vieta la divulgazione e
la riproduzione parziale o totale senza la sua autorizzazione scritta.
turbulence Thisand reducing
document contains turbulence
data and information in awhich
naturally turbulent
are the property boundary
of Agusta. layer;
Agusta forbids
reproduction, whether in part or in its entirety, without a written authorization from the company.
its circulation and
AGTEC168 Rev. 07
• The effectiveness of the synthetic jet actuator in boundary layer control may
not be predictable with only the output of the synthetic jet actuator operating
in a condition without cross flow;
Synthetic jet actuators have shown their effectiveness in reducing pressure drag
from turbulent boundary layer separation also during wind tunnel tests and
numerical simulations performed on a helicopter fuselage model [40]. A similar
application on a tilt rotor seems to be plausible.
The main advantages connected with these devices are here reported:
• As an active flow control device, synthetic jet actuators allow to attain a large
effect using a small, localized energy;
• Since zero net mass flux is involved, the synthetic jet device has the advantage
of eliminating the need for plumbing connections and an internal air supply,
then allowing a reduction in weight and costs;
• Unlike Passive control devices, e.g. vortex generators, the synthetic jet device
does not introduce a drag penalty when the flow does not separate;
On the other hand, the disadvantages the designer has to deal with, are
• Designing such a system is difficult. The cavity volume, neck length, slot
size, diaphragm area, and frequency must be correctly designed, in order to
obtain good results;
Figure 5.13: Model mounted in the wind tunnel: detail of vortex generators (taken from
[85]).
suggests the use of vortex generators to energize a boundary layer in the presence
of an adverse pressure gradient is based on the enhanced mixing produced by the
vortices between the high energy flow at the edge of the boundary layer and the
low energy flow in the boundary layer. In this manner, the energized boundary
layer flow can withstand a higher adverse pressure gradient without the occurrence
of separation, which considerably increases the pressure drag. Vortex generators
have been tested also on a C130 aircraft model to postpone separation [17].
The main advantages are:
• They do not require the expenditure of additional power from the propulsion
units.
• They can introduce a drag penalty when the flow does not separate, e.g.
during cruise condition;
• Passive solutions like Vortex Generators cannot control the flow velocity for
different flight conditions because they are mounted to the surface perma
nently and there is no possibility to change their shape or position during
the flight conditions.
In Figure 5.14, Vortex Generators of various shapes and sizes are depicted.
Questo documento contiene dati ed informazioni di proprietà Agusta che ne vieta la divulgazione e
la riproduzione parziale o totale senza la sua autorizzazione scritta.
This document contains data and information which are the property of Agusta. Agusta forbids its circulation and
reproduction, whether in part or in its entirety, without a written authorization from the company.
AGTEC168 Rev. 07
100 5. A Survey of the Techniques for Drag Reduction
• Compared with passive vortex generators, they can eliminate the parasitic
5.5 Pressure drag reduction 101
Figure 5.15: Schematic of the proposed separation control actuation concept (taken from
[97]).
• The size reduction significantly reduces the parasitic drag during cruise
conditions, and is enabled by the extreme fullness of the mean velocity
profile in a turbulent boundary layer.
• Such devices must be placed closer to the nominal separation location and
therefore may documento
Questo be less suitable thandati
contiene larger devices for di
ed informazioni situations
proprietà in whichche
Agusta thene vieta la divulgazio
la riproduzione parziale o totale senza la sua autorizzazione scritta.
separation region is not relatively localized.
This document contains data and information which are the property of Agusta. Agusta forbids its circulation
reproduction, whether in part or in its entirety, without a written authorization from the company.
AGTEC168 Rev. 07
102 5. A Survey of the Techniques for Drag Reduction
5.7.1 Winglets
The addition of tipmounted surfaces to a wing can reduce and diffuse the
vortex structures arising from the tips. Induced drag reductions result, but these
may be offset by unfavourable interference and viscous effects. The winglet is
one of the most known concept which can be thought as a device to increase
the effective span of the wing. As shown in Figure 5.16, the winglet is a small
wing mounted in the swirling flow at the wing tip. The lift on the winglet acts
as a side force and, with proper positioning of the winglet, it will have a thrust
component in Questo documento
the stream contiene
direction. Asdati
with edthe
informazioni
afterbodydi strakes,
proprietàthe
Agusta che ne vieta la divulgazio
structure
la riproduzione parziale o totale senza la sua autorizzazione scritta.
of the vorticesThisisdocument
somewhat diffused
contains dueinformation
data and to the winglets.
which are However,
the propertyone has toAgusta
of Agusta. be forbids its circulation
reproduction, whether in part or in its entirety, without a written authorization from the company.
AGTEC168 Rev. 07
104 5. A Survey of the Techniques for Drag Reduction
careful during winglet design process, since such surfaces have significant effects
on the structural weight. Actually, loads on the vertical surfaces and the increased
loads on the outboard region of the wing associated with adding these surfaces
increase the bending moments imposed on the wing structure. Moreover, adding
winglets means an increase in the overall wetted area, hence an increase in the skin
friction drag. The main advantages are:
• A proper design of winglets can also improve tiltrotor stability;
Table 5.3: Tiltrotor regions suitable for application of the mentioned devices.
niques.
106 5. A Survey of the Techniques for Drag Reduction
Chapter 6
Introduction to Intake
Aerodynamics
The fuel consumption of turboshaft engines depends not only on the output
power but also on the aerodynamic performance of air inlets and to a lesser extent,
of exhaust nozzles. Engine performance loss as compared to the ground bench
reference may be quite substantial, in the order of 5% or more on some helicopters.
In this chapter, the intake aerodynamics issue will be addressed. The reason for
this is to conceptually contextualize the optimization problem presented in Part I
of chapter 7. Moreover, in section 6.4.1, the intake performance parameters and the
way they are evaluated for the AW101 Intake Test case will be addressed.
• Internal flow: it enters the intake and the aerodynamicist’s task is to maxi
mize the condition of pressure and flow uniformity with which it arrives at
the engine face. These properties are vital to the performance and stability of
engine operation.
• External flow: it passes around the intake as part of the general airflow over
the aircraft itself. Although not quantitatively definable in the manner of
the internal flow, the external flow is nonetheless important to the aircraft
107
108 6. Introduction to Intake Aerodynamics
The subject of intake aerodynamics is the study of both the internal and the
external flow as defined in this way, with the scope of quantify their influence on
the aircraft efficiency and performance. The system requirements, for an aircraft
intake design, depend on the aircraft mission specification.
Hereafter, the main design goals for intake aerodynamics are summarized:
• To provide the engine with adequate mass flow rate, at the proper Mach
number, at the engine face throughout the whole flight envelope;
• To guarantee a smooth and uniform feed flow into the engine compressor;
• To integrate well within the nacelle or the fuselage, leading in a low installa
tion drag.
The next chapter will deal with the topic of subsonic inlets, and both internal
and external flow patterns will be considered. The importance of intake efficiency
of both these two kinds of flow patterns will be pointed out.
An engine installed in an aircraft must be provided with an air intake and a ducting system.
In Fig.2, a CAD drawing of the intake system, along with particle separator and exhaust duct, is
6.2 Subsonic inlets 109
illustrated. The sketch refers in particular to the new Tiltrotor concept ERICA (see Fig. 1).
For turboprop engines the airflow entering the compressor must have low Mach number, in the
range 0.4excessively sensitive
to 0.7, being to pitch
the upper part (upanddown)
of the range suitableand yaw (sidetoside)
for transonic motions only.
compressors of theIf the
aircraft. Moreover, this is one of the most challenging goal in intake
engine is designed for subsonic cruise, the inlet must be designed to act as a diffuser with aerodynamic
design,
reasonably gentlebecause
diffusionoffrom
theflight
adverse
Mach pressure
number gradient within
to a lower Machthe diffuser duct, which
number.
increases the attitude of the boundary layer to separate.
The inlet must be designed to prevent boundary layer separation, even when the axis of the
As a matter of fact, one recognizes that in a real flow environment, boundary
intake is not perfectly aligned with the streamline direction far upstream of the inlet. In other words,
layers are formed, and have the tendency to separate when exposed to a rising
the performance of the inlet must not be excessively sensitive to pitch (upanddown) and yaw
static pressure, known as an adverse pressure gradient. Therefore, the behaviour
(sidetoside) motions of the aircraft.
of a diffuser is expected to be driven by the viscous region near its walls, i.e.,
As a matter of fact,
the state of theone recognizes
boundary thatasinina attached,
layer real flow environment,
separated, orboundary layers
transitory are formed,
(unsteady)
and haveconditions.
the tendency to separate when exposed to a rising static pressure, known as an adverse
pressure gradient.
The mainTherefore, the behaviour
geometrical features of of aa subsonic
diffuser isdiffuser
expected are:to be driven by the viscous
Questo documento
1. contiene dati ed informazioni
The shape of thedicross
proprietàsection;
Agusta che ne vieta la divulgazione e la riproduzione parziale o totale senza la sua autorizzazione
scritta.
This document contains data and information which are the property of Agusta. Agusta forbids its circulation and reproduction, whether in part or in its entirety, without a written authorization from the
company.
2. The shape of the centerline;
AGTEC168 Rev. 07
3. The streamwise area variation.
Some example of classical cross sectional shape are provided in ﬁgure 3.5;
110
even tough modern aerodynamic design6.mayIntroduction to Intake
produce more Aerodynamics
complex shape like
the ERICA one (ﬁgure 3.4).
31
Figure Drawing
3.6:6.3:
Figure Schematicofdrawing
an Sshaped duct
of an Sduct with
with a schematic
two pockets representation
of swirling flows (known of
as the
swirling ﬂow [4].
the secondary flow patter) generated by the bends (taken from [28].)
TheThe swirling
swirling ﬂow
flowinduced
induced by thecurved
by the curvedductduct leads
leads in a variation
in a local local variation
of the of
relative flow
the relative ﬂowangle at the
angle at compressor inlet and,
the compressor in and,
inlet severein
situations, it may produce
severe situations, it may
rotating
produce stall instability
rotating of the compressor
stall instability rotor.
of the compressor rotor.
3.2.2
6.3 Inlet Operating
Inlet Operating Conditions
Conditions
An Depending
aircraft intake generally have to operate with a wide range of incident
on the flight speed and the mass flow demanded by the engine,
stream
the conditions
inlet may havein dependence on the
to operate with ﬂightrange
a wide speedofand/or
incidentthe massconditions.
stream ﬂow required
by the engine. Typical streamlines patterns in two diﬀerent subsonic
Figure 6.4 shows the streamline patterns for two typical subsonic conditions conditions
and
and the
thecorresponding
corresponding thermodynamic behavior are shown in ﬁgure 3.7.
thermodynamic path of an “average” fluid particle. During level
During level
cruise, the cruise, the
streamline streamlines
pattern pattern
may include may includeofsome
some deceleration deceleration
the entering fluid of
external to ﬂuid
the incoming the inlet plane (as
external to depicted
the inletinplane
Figure(3.7a).
6.4a).
On Onthethe contrary,during
contrary, duringlowlow speed,
speed, high
high trust,
trust,operations
operations likelike
takeoff and and
takeoﬀ
climb, the same engine requires more mass flow and the streamlines
climb, the same engine requires more mass ﬂow and the streamlines in the in the prepre
entry zone may resemble as in ﬁgure 3.7b, which shows external acceleration of
the preentry stream.
In both cases there is an isentropic external change of thermodynamic state.
For given air velocities of the undisturbed ﬂow (station a, far ahead of the aircraft)
and at the compressor inlet (station 2 ), external acceleration raises the inlet
velocity and in turn decreases the inlet pressure, thereby increasing the intensity
of the adverse pressure gradient along the diﬀuser. In severe situations this eﬀect
6.3 Inlet Operating Conditions 111
3.2 Introduction to Intake Aerodynamics
(a) High speed or low mass ﬂow (b) Low speed or high mass ﬂow
Figure
Figure 6.4: 3.7: Typical
Typical streamstream line patterns
line patterns in subsonic
in subsonic inlets from
inlets (taken [5]. [43].)
high engine
entry zoneload
mayoperations,
resemble aswhich also leads
in Figure 6.4b,to external
which deceleration
shows in normal
external acceleration
operating conditions.
of the preentry stream. In both cases there is an isentropic external change of
thermodynamic state. For given air velocities of the undisturbed flow (station a, far
ahead ofInternal
3.2.3 the aircraft)Flow
and at the compressor inlet (station 2), external acceleration
raises the inlet velocity and in turn decreases the inlet pressure, thereby increasing
The aerodynamic behavior of the internal ﬂow in an air intake can be quali
the intensity of the adverse pressure gradient along the diffuser. In severe situations
tatively described by means of diﬀusers theory because, like in diﬀusers behavior,
this effect may lead in stall of the diffuser because of boundary layer separation
in any section of the intake duct momentum decreases and pressure increases,
induced by adverse pressure gradient. Conversely, external deceleration reduce
without any external work supply.
the pressure rise across the diffuser and hence the boundary layer situation is less
Even though, only a little part of diﬀusers theories and experimental works can
critical. Therefore, the inlet area is chosen so as to minimize external acceleration
directly be applied to subsonic intake because the most of these works are focused
during high engine load operations, which also leads to external deceleration in
on maximum pressure recovery condition, which is usually associated with highly
normal operating conditions.
nonuniform exit velocities and the presence of some unsteadiness in the exit
ﬂow. In subsonic aircraft intakes there are always stringent requirements about
6.3.1
ﬂow Internal
steadiness flow
and uniformity at the compressor face. therefore, historically
intakeQualitatively
design practice does not use results of diﬀusers research but are strongly
the flow in the inlet behaves as though it were in a “diffuser”,
based on computer codes calculation followed by wind tunnel tests to asses inlet
which is a common element in fluid machinery.
performance under a wide range of operating conditions.
A better term might be decelerator, since the device is not primarily concerned
Nowadays, intake design procedures may obtain grate assistance by computa
with molecular or turbulent diffusion, but in this work the traditional term dif
tional ﬂuid dynamics (CFD) analysis involving the solutions of 3D Navier&Stokes
fuser will be retained and defined to mean any section of a duct in which fluid
momentum decreases and pressure rises, no work being done.
33
112 6. Introduction to Intake Aerodynamics
Considerable experimental and analytical work has been carried out on cylindri
cal (especially conical and annular) diffusers, but little of this is directly applicable
to subsonic aircraft inlets. The reason is that most of the work on diffusers focuses
on the conditions that are related to maximum pressure recovery, which is usually
associated with a highly nonuniform exit velocity profile and perhaps even with
some flow unsteadiness.
In typical subsonic aircraft inlets, there is a stringent requirement that the
flow velocity entering the compressor be steady and uniform. Consequently, inlet
design CHAPTER
does not3. depend
Introduction sotomuch on theProblem
the Aerodynamic results of diffusers research as on potential
flow calculations, coupled with boundary layer calculations and followed by wind
tunnel equations
testing[25].to assess inlet performance under a wide range of test conditions.
Figure 3.8 shown the three zones in which boundary layer separation may
Nowadays, intake
occur in a typical design
air intake procedure
plane section [5]: is assisted by Computational Fluid Dy
namics (CFD)
• Separation of the external ﬂow in zone one will be discussed inequations.
analyses involving 3D NavierStokes the next
In actual engine inlets, separation can take place in any of the three zones
section;
depending
3.2.4 on the geometry
External Flow of the duct and the operating conditions. Zone 3 may
be the scene of already
As it has quitepointed
largeout, adverse pressure
intake design gradients,
requires a compromise since the flow accelerates
between
around the nose of the centre body, and then decelerates as the curvature decreases.
external and internal deceleration to avoid boundary layer separation in both
regions.
At high angles
Figure 3.9 of attack,
shows a typical all
ﬂow three zones could
pattern characterized by largebe subjected
external decel to unusual pressure
eration. Flowing over the lip of the inlet, the external ﬂow is accelerated to high
gradients.
velocity, which leads in a low pressure region, adversely aﬀecting the boundary
layer ﬂow in two diﬀerent ways:
deceleration. Flowing over the lip of the inlet, the external flow is accelerated
to high velocity, which leads in a low pressure region, adversely affecting the
boundary layer flow in two different ways:
pressure gradients are high enough); hence one might expect a limiting low
pressure pmin or, equivalently, a maximum local velocity umax , beyond which
boundary layer separation can be expected downstream. This is the case of a
typical Tiltrotor nacelle.
2. For higher flight velocities (or higher local accelerations), partially supersonic
flow can occur. Local supersonic regions 3.2 usually end to
Introduction abruptly in a shock,
Intake Aerodynamics
and the shockwall intersection may cause a boundary layer separation.
2. For higher local accelerations, partially supersonic ﬂow may occur. Local
Whatever the cause, boundary layer separation is to be avoided, since it results
supersonic regions usually end abruptly in a shock, and the shockwall in
in poor pressure recovery in the flow over the after portions of the aircraft or
tersection can cause boundary layer separation. In this case, a limiting
engine housing. This,number
Mach of course,
can would result
be deﬁned likeinthe
a net rearward
value not to force or dragto
be exceeded onavoid
the
body. A simpleshock
onedimensional,
wave eﬀects. incompressible, model, introduced by Küchemann
35
114 6. Introduction to Intake Aerodynamics
whereCHAPTER
s is a value3.dependent onto
Introduction thetheshape of the nacelle
Aerodynamic Problem and c Pmax is the maximum
value of the pressure coefficient over the nacelle. Assuming s = 0.5, for purposes of
illustration, it is shown in Figure 6.7, the dependence of the size of the external
the variation of the frontal area ratio (Amax /Ai ), necessary to avoid boundary
surfacelayer
necessary to prevent
separation, external
in dependance boundary
on the layer
deceleration ratioseparation,
(ui /ua ) can for any given
be shown
ui
value of . 3.10.
in uﬁgure
a
6.7: Minimum
Figure Figure frontalfrontal
3.10: Minimum area area
ratioratio
for for
various
variousvalues of ccPPmax
values of (s==0.5
max (s 0.5ininequa
equation
tion 3.1),[5].
6.1)(taken from [43].)
separate or reattach. As a matter of fact, the main rotor slipstream may act so as
to energize the boundary layer and, hence to prevent its separations. Moreover,
3D effects (characterizing the real flows) and boundary layer effects of a typical
intakefuselage configuration of an helicopter are not negligible. Once again, Com
putational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analyses involving 3D NavierStokes equations
can effectively assist engineers during more advanced design steps.
The common feature of all different types of distortion is found in their desta
bilizing impact on the compressor performance. For helicopter inlets applications,
the dominant distortion effect is due to the total pressure distortion. Steady state
total pressure distortion is a measure of spatial nonuniformity of total pressure
time average values, over the engine face.
Total temperature and entropy distortions act in parallel with the total pressure
one, except when hot gases from external sources are ingested (i.e. exhaust gasses
from other aircrafts). Flow angle and swirl distortion impact the compressor
behavior in parallel with total pressure distortion, with similar effects; it has been
demonstrated that, especially at low incidence flight conditions, total pressure and
116 6. Introduction to Intake Aerodynamics
swirl coefficient have the same trend (an increase of swirl leads to an increase of
total pressure distortion) [79]. Moreover, totalpressure distortion may be steady or
timevariant (“dynamic”) and in the latter case, it may be of the spatially uniform
(“buzz”) type or of a spatially nonuniform (“turbulence”) type. Consistent with
the concept of totaltotal pressure ratio as a representative mean of timeaveraged
values of totalpressure across the engine face position, is the concept of distortion
as a measure of the spatial nonuniformity of those timeaveraged values. This
will be referred to as “steadystate” distortion, notwithstanding the fact that where
large transverse gradients of pressure are present, the flow timewise can at best
be no more than quasisteady. However, gas turbine engine manufacturers provide
limiting values of steady state total pressure distortion, which have to characterize
inlets in order to guarantee good engine performance.
Therefore, computation of steady state total pressure distortion is considered
sufficient for the intake performance optimization, which is the purpose of this
document.
Pf
ηT = (6.2)
P∞
where
• P∞ is the free stream total pressure. In this case, it is coincident with the total
pressure imposed at the Inlet boundary.
However, for the purpose of the present work, the absolute value of total
pressure losses
∆PT = P∞ − Pf (6.3)
was preferred to the total pressure ratio, for practical reasons due to the
optimization problem formulation, and specifically to the use of penalty functions
for functional constraints handling, as will be better specified in chapter 7.32.
Actually, the absolute values of total pressure losses along the intake, calculated
both in forward flight and hovering conditions, will be used for the formulation of
the multipoint optimization problem, as will be illustrated in chapter 7.32.
The total pressure loss can be evaluated form CFD simulations by means of
standard Fluent® post processing functions; in particular Pf can be determined
using a massweightedaverage surface integral (see [7]) of total pressure over the
6.4 IntakeEngine Integration: Flow Distortion Issue 117
Pf − Pϑ
DC (ϑ ) = (6.4)
qf
where Pf is the weighted area average total pressure at engine face, q f is the
corresponding mean dynamic head and Pϑ is the weighted area average total
pressure in the “worst” sector of the face, of angle ϑ. The sector “ϑ ” must be of
significant extent and 60° is usually regarded as a satisfactory minimum. Thus a
commonly used coefficient is DC (60): others which are also used are DC (90) and
DC (120) [79].
Pf − Pθ (3.2)
DC(θ) =
qf
e face, qf is the corresponding
where Pf is the mean total pressure at the engin
pressure in the ”worst” sector,
mean dynamic pressure and Pθ is the mean total
r must be of signiﬁcant extent and
of angular extent θ, in the face. The base secto
118 y 6.
valueIntroduction
. Thus a commonly to Intake
used paramAerodynamics
eter
60◦ is usually regarded as a satisfactor
0 and DC120.
is DC60; others which are also used are DC9
1. radial hub;
2. radial tip;
2. radial tip distortion;
1. As the angular extent of the spoiled sector (low inlet total pressure) is
increased, there in an angle above which the exit static pressure changes little
(Figure 6.12). This angular extent is often referred to as the critical sector
angle.
2. Fixing the total angular extent of the distortion, the effect of subdividing it
into different number of equal sections is shown in Figure 6.13. The greatest
effect on the loss of peak pressure rise is observed when there is only one
region. This suggests that inlet distortion patterns, which have a longer length
scale and a lower circumferential harmonic content, are the most important.
CHAPTER 3. Introduction to the Aerodynamic Problem
120 6. Introduction to Intake Aerodynamics
one region aﬀected by distortions. This suggest that inlet distortion pat
terns, which have a longer length scale and a lower circumferential harmonic
content, lead in an higher degradation of engine performance.
one region aﬀected by distortions. This suggest that inlet distortion pat
terns, which have a longer length scale and a lower circumferential harmonic
content, lead in an higher degradation of engine performance.
Figure 3.18: Eﬀect of circumferential distortion sector angle on surge pressure ratio
[9].
42 Figure 3.18: Eﬀect of circumferential distortion sector angle on surge pressure ratio
Figure 6.12: Effect of circumferential
[9]. distortion sector angle on surge pressure ratio (taken
from [77].)
42
3.3 IntakeEngine Integ
In this chapter three test cases will be considered in order to demonstrate the
strength and versatility of the optimization loop designed during my PhD course.
The first test case concerns the aerodynamic shape optimization of the AW101
left air intake. Two objective functions will be optimized by means of the Pareto
approach, that is the total pressure losses during forward flight and hovering
flight conditions. Functional constraints on the maximum total pressure distortion
allowed at the compressor inlet increase further the optimization complexity.
Commercial code Fluent was adopted as the CFD solver, and the optimization was
run in Windows environment.
The second test case concerns the aerodynamic shape optimization of the
ERICA nose region. One objective function was considered, that is the drag force
during forward flight condition. Ansys Fluent® was chosen as the CFD solver.
The third test case addresses the aerodynamic shape optimization of the ERICA
nose region, this time by exploiting OpenFOAM® as the CFD solver. Visibility
requirements were fulfilled, by properly setting up the design variables and
limiting the maximum allowable deformation displacement. This case differs from
the previous one with regard to both the mesh model and the CFD simulations
features.
123
124 7. Results and Discussion
Part I
Test case A:
Aerodynamic shape optimization
of the AW101 air intake ]1
125
127
7.1 Introduction
The final step is the reverse engineering process, which allows obtaining the
deformed surface starting from the mesh; this process was performed using
CATIA®V5 following the steps reported in section 7.12.
Sensitivity
analysis
Volume mesh
Parameterization
Optimal mesh
Parameterization
model
GeDEAII driven
optimization
CFD objective
Volume mesh
function values
Pareto front
optimal design
variables
combination
Optimal
Optimal
individuals mesh
geometries
reconstruction
Figure 7.2: CATIA® V5 models of AW101 model without main and tail rotors.
intake CAD model was greatly simplified: actually, the effects of the installation on
the AW101 fuselage were neglected in a first approximation, and the intake was
mounted over a flat plate, as depicted in Figure 7.3.
Two flight conditions were considered simultaneously for the intake optimiza
tion, namely cruise forward flight and hover. The main features of the reference
flight conditions are summarized in Table 7.1.
7.3 The object of the optimization 131
�����������
����������
������
����������
������
����� ��������
Figure 7.3: Virtual windtunnel layout with the AW101 left air intake system installed on a
virtual flat plate.
Air Intake
AIP
Figure 7.4: Closeup of the CAD model of the isolated air intake]1
Flight True air speed, True air speed, Pressure al Static pressure, Compressor OAT,
Condition [Kts] [m/s] titude, [m] [m] mass flow rate [C ]
[Kg/s]
Forward Flight 120 61.73 609.6 (2000 94214 4.7219 284.19
[ f t ])
Hovering Flight 0 0 0 101325 5.6472 288.15
Air Intake
AIP
Figure 7.5: A detailed view of the Air Intake and the Aerodynamic Interface Plane.
Dummy duct
Air Intake
Compressor
face
Figure 7.6: A detailed view of the Air Intake with the dummy duct and the compressor
face.
exported from CATIA® environment. Both the surface and the volume mesh sizes
are discussed in chapter 7.8, since they depend on both the level of surface grid
refinement and the virtual wind tunnel dimensions. The surface mesh was more
refined over the Air intake, which was the object of optimization, whereas the
superficial grid over the dummy duct and the flat plate was slightly coarser; finally,
the symmetry, inlet and outlet surface mesh was the coarsest one.
The choice of adopting different mesh sizes was motivated by the attempt to
contain the total amount of surface elements (and consequently the number of 3D
cells) as much as possible. The transition between two zones with different mesh
size was accomplished by properly selecting Hypermesh® Advanced meshing tool
parameters. This feature is a really important characteristic of a CFD mesh, and it
is fundamental for a good CFD solution convergence. Two different surface mesh
distributions on the Air intake surface were investigated during the sensitivity
analysis, as will be illustrated in chapter 7.8. The finally selected model was
characterized by the following features:
Table 7.2: Finally selected number of elements and target element size for each fuselage
component.
In Figure 7.7, the element size transition between the Air Intake and the
compressor face is smooth, hence ensuring robustness during the following CFD
calculations.
7.5 Mesh generation 135
Figure 7.8: Superficial mesh over the virtual wind tunnel walls.
136 Part I  Aerodynamic shape optimization of the AW101 air intake ]1
Figure 7.9: Longitudinal view of the whole volumetric mesh on a center line plane.
Figure 8: Longitudinal view of the whole volumetric mesh on a center line plane.
settings and the coordinates of refinement regions, can be found in Appendix C.4.
A longitudinal view of the whole volume mesh is depicted in Figure 7.9, while
Figure 7.10 illustrates a closeup of the mesh near the intake system surface. Finally,
a particular of the boundary layer near the compressor face is reported in Figure
7.11.
The Tri/Tet Growth rate parameter was set to 1.1, in order to obtain a fine and
uniform mesh in the regions of interest.
approach was adopted for the tiltrotor simulations. The κ − ω SST model was
17 The aspect ratio is defined as the ratio of the prism base length to the prism layer height.
7.6 Fluiddynamic model set up 137
Components with boundary layer Air Intake, Dummy Duct, Dummy Flat Plate
Components without boundary layer Inlet, Outlet, Symmetry, AIP, Compressor face
B.L. Offset method HC/HIT09/WP1.2/D1/A (31/10/11)
Aspect ratio (10)
B.L. Growth method Geometric
Assessment of the optimization problem formulation and
application to a trial problem
B.L. Number of layer (HEAVYcOPTer D1 part II) 5
B.L. First height 1
B.L. Growth rate 1.2
Tri/Tet Improve surface mesh option Enabled
Tri/Tet Refinment method Adv/front
Tri/Tet Cell size function Geometric
Tri/Tet Growth rate 1.1
Tri/Tet Refinement regions No
Figure 11  Closeup of the volume mesh: boundary layer near the compressor face.
Figure 7.11: Closeup of the volume mesh: boundary layer near the compressor face.
dimensional flows, while not negatively affecting the total time requested for
The air was treated as an ideal gas having constant specific heats, which automatically enables
the equation energy resolution. This makes it possible to include the compressibility effects in the
simulations when
numerical compared
simulations: toit can
in fact, as thebethird
deducedorder upwind
from Table 1, the flightscheme.
condition selected for
optimization features a moderately high Mach number. In Table 4, the air properties assigned for
the intake nose optimization are summarized.
Regarding the underrelaxation factors, they were left to their default values.
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
As regardsInternational
the baseline run,
Ltd. (Collectively the
known solution was initialized by means of the Hybrid
as “AgustaWestland”)
As far as the morphed cases is concerned, an interpolation file was used to map
data from the baseline mesh onto the deformed one. To do so, an interpolation file
was created for both the flown conditions. These files contained all the needed fluid
dynamic variables regarding the baseline CFD run. This strategy was followed in
order to decrease further the computational time, since, reasonably, the morphed
cases feature a fluid dynamic variables distribution not so different from the
baseline one.
For each simulation, the convergence criterion was established when normal
ized RMS residuals were less than 1 · 10−6 . Furthermore, the Mass weighted
average of the total pressure on the AIP was monitored, in order to make sure it
would reach stabilized values at the end of the simulation.
7.7 Boundary and operating conditions 139
V∞
Ma∞ = √ (7.1)
kRT∞
where k is the specific heats ratio (1.4 for dry air) and R is the gas constant
(287 [ J/(kg · K )] for dry air). The resulting operating Mach number is 0.1826. The
following equations were used to calculate the total pressure and total temperature
140 Part I  Aerodynamic shape optimization of the AW101 air intake ]1
at the inlet:
k −1
k−1
k
PT = P∞ 1 + Ma2∞ (7.2)
2
k−1
TT = T∞ 1 + Ma2∞ (7.3)
2
being P∞ the static pressure given in Table 7.1.
Subtracting the value of the reference pressure to the total pressure calculated
with Equation 7.2, we obtained a gauge total pressure of 96433.255 [Pa] for the
forward flight, and 101325 for the hovering flight, while the resulting total tem
perature from Equation 7.3 was 286.086 [K ] and 288.15 [K ], respectively. Table 7.6
summarizes the settings for the pressure inlet boundary condition.
Gauge total pressure [ Pa] 96433.255 (Forward Flight) 101325 (Hovering Flight)
Supersonic/initial gauge pressure [ Pa] 94214 (Forward Flight) 101325 (Hovering Flight)
Direction specification method normal to boundary
Turbulence specification method Intensity and length scale
Turbulent intensity [%] 1
Turbulent length scale [m] 0.5
Total temperature [K ] 286.086 (Forward Flight) 288.15 (Hovering Flight)
The pressure outlet boundary condition requires the specification of the gauge
static pressure and the backflow total temperature at the outlet surfaces: a relative
zero gauge pressure (corresponding to the undisturbed value) and a backflow
total temperature equal to the inlet static temperature were chosen. Table 7.7
summarizes the settings for the pressure outlet boundary condition on the outlet
surfaces.
Gauge pressure [ Pa] 94214 (Forward Flight) 101325 (Hovering Flight)
Direction specification method normal to boundary
Turbulence specification method Intensity and length scale
Turbulent intensity [%] 1
Turbulent length scale [m] 0.5
Backflow Total temperature [K ] 284.19 (Forward Flight) 288.15 (Hovering Flight)
quite insensitive to variations of the turbulent length scale, at least for reasonable
values of this parameter. As far as the compressor face boundary condition is
concerned, a preliminary consideration has to be done. Intake flow field is strongly
dependent on the mass flow rate imposed by the engine compressor at the AIP.
The value of AIP mass flow rate is usually a function of both flight operating con
ditions (flight speed, altitude, external pressure and temperature etc.) and power
demanded by the rotor. The compressor aspiration effects can be well modeled in
Fluent® by imposing at the AIP a pressureoutlet boundary condition with target
mass flow rate specification. Such a kind of boundary condition iteratively adjusts
the static pressure on the outlet surface until the mass flow rate measured on the
surface itself matches the specified value [7]. Unfortunately, the problem with this
solution is the constant static pressure distribution which is imposed on the outlet
surface by the boundary condition. This is not acceptable at the AIP, which is the
location where inlet performance has to be measured. For this reason, an additional
portion of the engine duct, behind the AIP, was modeled with the purpose of
assigning the target mass flow boundary condition on a surface downstream the
AIP. This additional dummy duct is clearly visible in Figure 7.6. Of course, the
flow field characteristic over this additional portion of the engine duct will be not
considered since the geometry results from a series of assumptions. However, it
allows to unconstraint the AIP static pressure distribution, resulting in a more
suitable CFD model for the intake system flow field. The location of the compressor
face was established by means of a sensitivity analysis presented in section 7.8. On
the compressor face, the pressureoutlet boundary condition features the following
settings.
1. First, the dummy duct length was varied in order to point out the influence
of the duct length on the pressure losses and the DC (60) parameter in
both the flight conditions considered.The sensitivity analysis to the dummy
duct length was carried out using a coarse computational mesh, whose
characteristics are discussed later on.
2. Once the proper duct length area was selected, the influence of the grid
refinement was highlighted.
As far as the dummy duct length is concerned, three different values were
analyzed (namely 500 [mm], 1,200 [mm] and 2,000 [mm]) while keeping all the
other dimensions of the fluid domain fixed to their original values, and the effects
on the intake performance were registered, both in terms of total pressure losses
and maximum DC (60), for both forward flight and hover conditions.
The results of the sensitivity study are summarized in Table 7.9.
Dummy duct Total pressure Total pressure DC (60) max DC (60) max
length [mm] losses. losses. imum value. imum value.
Forward Flight Hovering Flight Forward flight Hovering flight
[ Pa] [ Pa]
500 831 200 0.461 0.027
1200 801 218 0.427 0.041
2000 802 226 0.403 0.044
As apparent, the total pressure losses in forward flight condition seem to reach
an asymptotic value with increasing length of the virtual duct, and in particular
they appear already stabilized for a dummy duct length equal to 1,200 [mm].
On the other hand, regarding the hovering conditions, the total pressure losses
tend to increase with increasing length of the dummy duct, even though the
maximum variation is within 10% of the baseline. Moreover, the DC (60) maximum
value tends to decrease as the duct length increases in forward flight conditions,
while the opposite occurs in hover conditions. However, excursions of DC (60) are
considered within acceptable values, at least for the duct lengths of 1200 [mm]
and 2000 [mm], for both forward flight and hover conditions. For the sake of
completeness, in Figure 7.12 and Figure 7.13 a graphical representation of the AIP
DC (60) sensitivity to dummy duct length is illustrated for the forward flight and
hover conditions respectively.
As apparent, the predicted DC (60) distributions at the AIP using a dummy
duct length equal to 1200 [mm] and 2000 [mm] respectively (corresponding to
red and black dotted lines in the figures), are very close to each other in both the
considered flight conditions. For this reason, the second model was adopted since
7.8 Grid sensitivity analysis 143
0.5
dummy duct length 500 [mm]
0.4
dummy duct length 1200 [mm]
0.3
dummy duct length 2000 [mm]
0.2
DC60(θ)
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
θ [°]
Figure 7.12: AIP DC (60) sensitivity to dummy duct length. Forward Flight condition
0.05
DC60(θ)
0.05
0.1
Figure 7.13: AIP DC (60) sensitivity to dummy duct length. Hovering Flight condition
144 Part I  Aerodynamic shape optimization of the AW101 air intake ]1
it appeared a good compromise solution for limiting the total amount of mesh
elements.
In a second step, a grid refinement was carried out on the selected geometrical
configuration, with the final aim of increasing the robustness of the CFD model
for optimization purposes.
Actually, the objective here was not to implement a highly accurate numerical
model fully validated against experimental data, but rather to set up a sufficiently
reliable and robust computational grid, suitable for use in the optimization runs.
For this reason, the final selected mesh was rather coarse.
A comparison of the characteristic features of the two analyzed grids is reported
in in Table 7.10.
Coarse Model Refined model
Mesh type Triangular Triangular
Number of elements 29941 37897
Element size within the Air Intake [mm] 16 ÷ 50 15
Element size within the Dummy duct [mm] 20 ÷ 200 15 ÷ 50
Element size within the Dummy Flate plate [mm] 50 ÷ 400 10 ÷ 100
Element size within the inlet, outlet and symmetry planes [mm] 150 ÷ 400 100 ÷ 400
Element size within the AIP [mm] 16 ÷ 50 11 ÷ 11
Maximum 2D skeweness angle [°] 67 52
Maximum 2D aspect ratio 4.59 2.65
Table 7.10: Superficial mesh features of the coarse and refined model.
Moreover, the effects of the grid refinement on the air intake performance, both
in terms of total pressure losses and maximum DC (60), are summarized in Table
7.11.
Mesh Total pressure Total pressure DC (60) max DC (60) max
refinement losses. losses. imum value. imum value.
level Forward Flight Hovering Flight Forward flight Hovering flight
[ Pa] [ Pa]
Coarse 801 218 0.43 0.04
Fine 794 207 0.45 0.002
Apparently, as far as the total pressure losses are concerned, the percentage
variation was negligible in forward flight conditions (<1%), whereas it became
larger in hovering flight (≈ 5%). Also regarding the DC (60) maximum values,
a remarkable percentage variation was evidenced in hover conditions, while the
forward flight value was less sensitive to the grid refinement level.
On the basis of the sensitivity analysis results, the refined mesh was selected for
the subsequent optimization runs: actually, no further refinement was investigated,
since the model was considered accurate enough for the trial optimization purposes.
Moreover, it was also more robust than the coarser one from a computational point
HC/HIT09/WP1.2/D1/A (31/10/11)
Assessment of the optimization problem formulation and
7.8 Grid sensitivity analysis
application to a trial problem 145
(HEAVYcOPTer D1 part II)
Figure 15: Contours of wall y+ over the air intake walls: forward flight (on the left) and hovering
Figure 7.14: Contours of wall y+ over (on
thethe
Airright).
Intake walls: forward flight (on the left) and
hovering (on the right).
34 / 69 This document is the property of the author(s) organization(s) and shall not be distributed or reproduced without their
The total
formal pressure contours over the air intake walls are illustrated in Figure
approval.
Figure 16: Contours of total pressure ([Pa]) over the air intake walls: forward flight (on the left)
and hovering
Figure 7.15: Contours of total pressure (on thethe
([Pa]) over right).
air intake walls: forward flight (on
the left) and hovering (on the right).
Highly nonsymmetrical
flow due to the vortex Nearly symmetrical
Forward flight Hover distortions due to
generated inside the
intake the sharp corner
Figure 18: Total pressure distribution ([Pa]) over the AIP surface: forward flight (on the left) and
Figure 7.17: Total pressure distribution hovering
([Pa]) over the
(on the AIP surface: forward flight (on the
right).
left) and hovering (on the right).
36 / 69 This document is the property of the author(s) organization(s) and shall not be distributed or reproduced without their
The circumferential
formal approval.
distribution of DC (60) over the AIP for the intake ]1
baseline geometry is illustrated in Figure 7.18 and Figure 7.19 for forward flight
and hover conditions respectively. Finally, the location of the DC (60) worst sector
for the two considered flight conditions is illustrated in Figure 7.20.
For the forward flight condition, the maximum DC (60) has a value of 0.45, and
the worst sector is located at 340 [deg]. On the other hand, in hover condition the
maximum DC (60) is 0.0205, and the worst sector is located at 360 [deg]. Moreover,
a somehow more regular and “periodical” fluctuation of distortions along the
circumferential direction is evidenced in hover (as can be appreciated in Figure
7.19), than that occurring in forward flight condition. The initial assessment of
HC/HIT09/WP1.2/D1/A (31/10/11)
Assessment of the optimization problem formulation and
application to a trial problem
(HEAVYcOPTer D1 part
HC/HIT09/WP1.2/D1/A II)
(31/10/11)
Assessment of the optimization problem formulation and
application to a trial problem
The above mentioned flow characteristics have a direct impact on the total pressure
(HEAVYcOPTer D1 part II)
148 Part I over
distribution Aerodynamic shape
the AIP, hence affecting the optimization
compressor inlet flowof the AW101
distortions. The totalair intake ]1
pressure
Thecontours over the AIP
above mentioned in characteristics
flow both forward flight
haveanda hovering conditions
direct impact on thearetotal
reported in
pressure
Figure 18.
distribution over the AIP, hence affecting the compressor inlet flow distortions. The total
DC60MAX
pressure contours over the AIP in both forward flight and hovering conditions are reported in
Figure 18.
DC60MAX
Forward flight
Forward flight
Figure 19: Circumferential distribution of DC60 for the intake#1 baseline model: forward flight.
Figure 7.18: Circumferential distribution of DC (60) for the intake ]1 baseline model:
forward flight.
Figure 19: Circumferential distribution of DC60 for the intake#1 baseline model: forward flight.
Hover
DC60MAX
Hover
DC60MAX
HC/HIT09/WP1.2/D1/A (31/10/11)
Assessment of the optimization problem formulation and
application to a trial problem
(HEAVYcOPTer D1 part II)
37 / 69 This document is the property of the author(s) organization(s) and shall not be distributed or reproduced without their
Forward flight
formal approval.
Hover
Figure 21: Location of the DC60 worst sector for the intake#1 baseline model: forward flight (on
Figure 7.20: Location of the 60)hover
left) (and
the DC worst sector for
conditions theright).
(on the intake ]1 baseline model: forward
flight (on the left) and hover conditions (on the right).
For the forward flight condition, the maximum DC60 has a value of 0.45, and the worst
sector is located at 340 [deg]. On the other hand, in hover condition the maximum DC60 is
0.0205, and the worst sector is located at 360 [deg]. Moreover, a somehow more regular and
“periodical” fluctuation of distortions along the circumferential direction is evidenced in hover
(as can be appreciated in Figure 20), than that occurring in forward flight condition.
The initial assessment of the baseline intake aerodynamic features was essential for the
identification of a proper parameterization strategy. Actually, the intake optimization is
devoted to a reduction of the total pressure losses in both hover and forward flight conditions,
and also the maximum flow distortions at the AIP must be kept within acceptable values as
well. Hence, appropriate deformations will be carried out on the baseline geometry aimed at
reducing vortex flows and local separations inside the intake.
7.9 Parameterization 149
the baseline intake aerodynamic features was essential for the identification of a
proper parameterization strategy. Actually, the intake optimization is devoted to a
reduction of the total pressure losses in both hover and forward flight conditions,
and also the maximum flow distortions at the AIP must be kept within acceptable
values as well. Hence, appropriate deformations will be carried out on the baseline
geometry aimed at reducing vortex flows and local separations inside the intake.
7.9 Parameterization
Once the baseline CFD solution was analyzed, the geometry parameterization
was carried out. This operation is of outstanding importance in the optimization
process and it can be performed using various techniques. For the scope of the
present work, the commercial software Altair HyperMesh® was adopted as the
parameterization tool, due to the really versatile capabilities of the morphing tool
HyperMorph. The choice of this software is mainly justified with its effectiveness
and ease of use, which allows the user to build up complex parametric models in
a relatively easy way by means of a dedicated graphical user interface. Moreover,
the parameterization procedure in HyperMorph is very general: specifically, it is
independent from the peculiar model (either FEM or CFD) which is the object of
the optimization analysis. Therefore, whatever the geometry, the user is always
allowed to use the same morphing strategies, resulting in a remarkable saving of the
required working time for parameterization. Actually, both the above mentioned
characteristics are fundamental in an industrial context, where time is always an
essential issue. The geometry parameterization was carried out in a series of steps:
1. First of all, the baseline case file was imported into HyperMesh® in Fluent®
format.
2. The desired shapes were generated, starting from the baseline geometry,
through the morphing techniques available within HyperMorph®. For CFD
studies, the more suitable strategy is the domainshandles approach for
localized deformation, and the morphvolumes approach for global morphing
requirements.
3. The generated shapes were then saved: with this operation, HyperMorph
stores the current handles/nodes perturbations, allowing the user to apply
them to the baseline model with any given scaling factor. Using this approach,
the scaling factor of any generated shape can be dealt with as a design
variable by an optimization algorithm.
4. The parameterized model was saved into an .hm file, which was then used
for the batchmode parameterization.
Free surfaces
Constrained surfaces
Figure 22: Geometrical constraints on the air intake surfaces: front view (on the left) and top
view (on the right).
Figure 7.21: Geometrical constraints on the air intake surfaces: front view (on the left) and
top view (on the right).
40 / 69 This document is the property of the author(s) organization(s) and shall not be distributed or reproduced without their
formal approval.
• αi is the ith shape scaling factor and it is actually generated by the optimiza
tion algorithm GeDEAII for each analyzed individual.
For the present application, the following ranges were defined for the values of
α
• αi ∈ [0, 1], i = 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9;
• αi ∈ [−1, 1], i = 1, 2, 7;
Using this approach, a scaling factor equal to zero means that the morphed
geometry is identical to the baseline one, while a scaling factor equal to one
produces the maximum allowed displacement within the specified range. Finally,
scaling factors equal to minus one produce the maximum allowed displacement
but in the opposite direction with respect to the original definition of the shape
modifications.
In the following, the adopted design variables for intake optimization are
described. In Figure 7.22, a series of cut planes used to define the shape functions
are illustrated, while the xz or xy sections of the intake model parametric shapes,
applied with a basic scaling factor equal to one, are reported from Figure 7.23 to
Figure 7.31; the corresponding handle displacements are visualized as well.
The selected shape functions are described hereafter:
1. sh1: this shape consists in an initial deformation along the zaxis of the blue
handle illustrated in Figure 7.23, which is located on the transversal cut
plane B; in this figure, the baseline shape along with the deformed one are
presented. The initial deformation range assigned to this variable was equal
to ± 20 [mm];
2. sh2: this shape consists in an initial deformation along the zaxis of the blue
handle illustrated in Figure 7.24, which lies on the transversal cut plane C.
The initial deformation range was given a value of ± 20 [mm].
3. sh3: this shape consists in an initial deformation along the zaxis of the blue
handle illustrated in Figure 7.62, located on the transversal cut plane B. It
was given an initial deformation range of ± 20 [mm];
152 Part I  Aerodynamic shape optimization of the AW101 air intake ]1
Plane E
Plane D
Plane C
Plane B
Plane A
4. sh4:this shape consists in an initial deformation along the zaxis of the blue
handle illustrated in Figure 7.63, which lies on the transversal cut plane C. It
was given an initial deformation range of ± 20 [mm];
5. sh5:this shape consists in the deformation of the sharp corner located in the
upper portion of the air intake, close to the AIP, as illustrated in Figure 7.64.
It was given an initial deformation range of ± 20 [mm]; moreover, morph
constraints allowed to keep unchanged the red surfaces illustrated in Figure
7.64.
6. sh6:his shape consists in an initial deformation along the yaxis of the blue
handle located in the central region of the intake on the longitudinal cut
section E, as illustrated in Figure 7.28. It was given an initial deformation
range of ± 20 [mm] along the y direction;
7. sh7:this shape allows deforming the elbow region of the air intake both along
the x and yaxes, as depicted in Figure 7.29. The initial deformation range
assigned to this variable was equal to ± 20 [mm];
8. sh8:this shape consists in an initial deformation along both the x and yaxis of
the blue handle located in the central region of the intake on the longitudinal
cut section E, as illustrated in Figure 7.30. It was given an initial deformation
range of +20 [mm] and 20 [mm] along the x and y direction respectively;
9. sh9:this shape consists in a clockwise rotation of the whole air intake, around
the base point called “A” in Figure 7.31. The initially selected deformation
range was equal to ± 10 [deg]. Only clockwise rotation was allowed, in order
to comply with the geometrical constraints illustrated in Figure 7.21.
7.9 Parameterization 80091067 153
Numerical optimization of the EH101 Rev. A
Pag. 49 of 86
80091067
Numerical optimization of the EH101 Rev. A
Sh1 Pag. 49 of 86
Handle displacement vector
Deformed configuration
Δx= 0 [mm] Final handle position
Δy= 0 [mm] Initial handle position
Plane
Sh2 C Handle displacement vector
Δx= 0 [mm]
xz plane section
Deformed configuration
Baseline configuration
Δy= 0 [mm]
Plane C Initial handle position
Δy= 0
Δx= 20 [mm]
[mm] Deformed configuration
Final handle position
Figure 32  Parametric shape Sh2, applied to the intake model with scaling factor α1=+1.
Figure 32  Parametric shape Sh2, applied to the intake model with scaling factor α80091067
1=+1.
Figure 7.24: Parametric shape Sh2, optimization
Numerical applied to the intake
of the model with scaling
EH101 Rev. A factor α = +1.
Pag. 50 of 86
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
Handle displacement vector
Sh3
Copyright – 2007
This document contains Agusta
confidential SpA,
proprietary Westland
information Helicopters
and is supplied Ltd, Westland
on the express condition that it may not beTransmissions Ltd orand
disclosed, reproduced In whole in part,AgustaWestland
or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
xz plane section
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”) Baseline configuration
Copyright
Plane B and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
Deformed configuration
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
Δx= 0 [mm]
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
Plane C
Deformed configuration
Δx= 0 [mm]
Initial handle position
Δy= 0 [mm]
Δy= 20 [mm] Final handle position
154 Part I  Aerodynamic shape optimization of the AW101 air intake ]1
Figure 33  Parametric shape Sh3, applied to the intake model with scaling factor α1=+1.
Plane C
Deformed configuration
Δx= 0 [mm]
Initial handle position
Δy= 0 [mm]
Δy= 20 [mm] Final handle position
Figure 34  Parametric shape Sh4, applied to the intake model with scaling factor α1=+1.
Figure 7.26: Parametric shape Sh4, applied to the intake model with scaling factor α = +1.
80091067
Numerical optimization of the EH101 Rev. A
80091067
Pag. 51 of 86
Numerical optimization of the EH101 Rev. A
Pag. 51 of 86
Δy= 0D[mm]
Plane Deformed
Final configuration
handle position
Δy= 0 [mm]
Δx= 20 [mm] Initial handle position
Figure 35  Parametric shape Sh5, applied to the intake model with scaling factor α1=+1.
Figure 7.27: Parametric shape Sh5, applied to the intake model with scaling factor α = +1.
Handle displacement vector
Sh6
Figure 35  Parametric shape Sh5, applied to the intake model with scaling factor α1=+1.
Baseline configuration
xy plane section
Plane E Deformed configuration
Figure 36  Parametric shape Sh6, applied to the intake model with scaling factor α1=+1.
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
Figure 36  Parametric shape Sh6, applied to the intake model with scaling factor α1=+1.
Figure 7.28: Parametric shape Sh6, applied to the intake model with scaling factor α = +1.
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
7.9 Parameterization 80091067 155
Numerical optimization of the EH101 Rev. A
Pag. 52 of 86
80091067
Numerical optimization of the EH101 Rev. A
Handle displacement vector
Sh7 Pag. 52 of 86
Baseline configuration
xy plane section
Handle displacement vector
Sh7
Plane E Deformed configuration
Baseline configuration
Δx=plane
xy section
20 [mm]
Initial handle
Initialposition
handle position
Δy= 20
Plane E [mm] Deformed configuration
Final handle position
Δx=
Δy= 0
20[mm]
[mm]
Initial handle
Initialposition
handle position
Δy= 20 [mm]
Final handle position
Δy= 0 [mm]
Figure 37  Parametric shape Sh7, applied to the intake model with scaling factor α =+1.
Figure 7.29: Parametric shape Sh7, applied to the intake model with scaling
1
factor α = +1.
Figure
Sh8 37  Parametric shape Sh7, applied to the intake model with scaling factor α1=+1.
Handle displacement vector
80091067
Numerical optimization of the EH101 Rev. A
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
Pag. 53 of 86
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
Figure 7.30: Parametric shape Sh8, applied to the intake model with scaling factor α = +1.
Figure 38  Parametric shape Sh8, applied to the intake model with scaling factor α1=+1.
point of the
156 Part I 38
Figure  Aerodynamic shape
 Parametric shape Sh8, appliedoptimization of scaling
to the intake model with the AW101 air intake ]1
factor α =+1. 1
point of the
rotation
Figure 39  Parametric shape Sh9, applied to the intake model with scaling factor α1=+1.
Figure 7.31: Parametric shape Sh9, applied to the intake model with scaling factor α = +1.
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
and x is the design variable vector, consisting in the coefficients of the linear
combination of the shape functions describing the morphed intake geometries
(please read section 7.9):
x = [ α1 , α2 , α3 , α4 , α5 , α6 , α7 , α8 , α1 9] (7.7)
• αi ∈ [0, 1], i = 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9;
• αi ∈ [−1, 1], i = 1, 2, 7;
average integral of the total pressure over the AIP was used in the present work for
computation of total pressure losses. The requirement of keeping the maximum
DC (60) equal or lower than the baseline value in both the flight conditions was
treated as a functional constraint, and a penalty function approach was used to
handle this constraint. Specifically, some additional terms were added to the fitness
functions expressed in Equation 7.6, which penalized the fitness values when a
constraint was violated. In fact, a constraint violation results in an increase of the
additional term which in turn increases the original value of the fitness function.
As a consequence, during the selection mechanism the evolutionary algorithm
tends to prefer individuals that do not violate the constraints, and to discard the
penalized ones. In this way, it is likely that the latest generation will be constituted
by individuals that do not violate these constraints, and whose penalty function
values have consequently null value. The adopted penalty function for DC (60)
coefficient takes the following form:
0 i f DC60con f iguration ≤ DC60baseline
PF = α (7.8)
β  DC60con f iguration − DC60baseline 
DC60baseline i f DC60con f iguration > DC60baseline
where α is equal to 0.5, in order to give a convex form to the penalty function
and force the constraints satisfaction; β was given a value equal to 700 and 100
for forward flight and hovering conditions respectively. These specific values were
selected after a preliminary analysis aimed at finding a suitable shape for the
penalty functions curves. The choice of the absolute value of total pressure losses
rather than the total pressure ratio for the fitness function evaluation was actually
related to the use of the above mentioned penalty function for control of the
maximum flow distortion. In fact, being the values of the pressure recovery very
close to 1, a suitable coupling with the typical values of the penalty function would
have been more difficult, thus making the penalization for constraint violation
ineffective. Therefore, the optimization problem can be finally reformulated as
follows:
Minimize [ PF + F (x)] (7.9)
Moreover, the number of individuals per generation was set to 12, while the
number of generations for the trial optimization run was set to 20.
Figure 33: The entire set of geometries calculated during the optimization run.
Figure 7.32: The entire set of geometries calculated during the optimization run.
49 / 61 This document is the property of the author(s) organization(s) and shall not be distributed or reproduced without their
formal approval.
functions are represented. In addition, the DC (60) values for each individual
on the Pareto front are reported for both forward flight and hover conditions.
From the figure, the conflicting nature of the two selected objectives is clearly
apparent. Furthermore, the front appears to be very sharp, in the sense that very
small improvements of the total pressure losses in forward flight condition lead
to remarkable degradations of the corresponding objective function in hover. In
addition, neither the DC (60) in forward flight nor in hover conditions show a
monotonic trend with the values of the objective functions along the Pareto front.
The point on the Pareto front represented with a star in Figure 7.33 was selected
as the final solution, since it was judged a satisfactory compromise between the two
selected objectives. In Table 7.12, the design variables values of the selected solution
are summarized (a null value indicates that the corresponding shape function was
not modified with respect to the baseline). Moreover, a direct comparison of the
optimized solution geometry with the baseline is illustrated in Figure 7.34. As
Parameter ] Sh1 Sh2 Sh3 Sh4 Sh5 Sh6 Sh7 Sh8 Sh9
Selected solution −0.7 −0.373 0 1 0 0 1 0.1686 1
Table 7.12: Trial intake optimization results: design parameters values for the selected
optimized individual.
apparent from Figure 7.34, the optimized solution features an enlarged passage
area at the transversal midsection (sh1), which allows a local rearrangement of
(HEAVYcOPTer D1 part II)
Moreover, in Figure 34, the evolution of the Pareto front throughout the whole
optimization is depicted:
7.11 Discussion the fitness functions improvement with increasing number 159
of results of
generations is clearly appreciable.
Finally, the ultimate Pareto front after 20 generations is illustrated in Figure 35. Also in
this case, the modified objective functions with addition of the penalty functions are
represented. In addition, the DC60 values for each individual on the Pareto front are reported
for both forward flight and hover conditions. From the figure, the conflicting nature of the two
selected objectives is clearly apparent. Furthermore, the front appears to be very sharp, in
the sense that very small improvements of the total pressure losses in forward flight condition
lead to remarkable degradations of the corresponding objective function in hover. In addition,
neither the DC60 in forward flight nor in hover conditions show a monotonic trend with the
values of the objective functions along the Pareto front.
51 / 61 This document is the property of the author(s) organization(s) and shall not be distributed or reproduced without their
formal approval.
Parameter# Sh1 Sh2 Sh3 Sh4 Sh5 Sh6 Sh7 Sh8 Sh9
Selected
0.7 0.373 0 1 0 0 1 0.1686 1
solution
160 Part I  Aerodynamic shape optimization of the AW101 air intake ]1
Table 12: Trial intake optimization results: design parameters values for the selected optimised
individual.
Baseline
Optimized
Figure 36: Optimized solution geometrical configuration: comparison with the baseline intake
geometry.
Figure 7.34: Optimized solution geometrical configuration: comparison with the baseline
intake geometry.
52 / 61 This document is the property of the author(s) organization(s) and shall not be distributed or reproduced without their
formal approval.
the flow field, and therefore a reduction of the vortex flow, as will be illustrated
later on. On the other hand, deformation of the sh4 shape acts in the direction
of locally widen the intake duct section, and this has beneficial effects on both
total pressure losses reduction and flow distortion requirements. Moreover, the
optimized solution features a more smoothed elbow curvature (sh7) with respect
to baseline. Finally, a remarkable rotation of the whole air intake around the point
“A” depicted in Figure 7.34 is given to the optimized configuration: once again,
this has a beneficial impact on the flow field inside the intake duct, since it reduces
flow separation in the entry region occurring in forward flight condition. In Table
7.13, the values of the objective functions of the optimized solution are reported
and compared with the baseline. As apparent, a remarkable reduction of the total
pressure losses along the intake duct was obtained with the optimized solution,
especially in hover conditions; in addition, regarding the flow distortion at the AIP,
a large reduction of the DC (60) at the engine face was achieved in forward flight
and, to a lesser extent, in hover conditions, even though the flow distortion was
not directly included in the objective function, but rather treated using a penalty
function (please read section 7.32).
7.11 Discussion of results 161
Table 7.13: Trial intake optimization results: Total pressure drop and DC60 reduction with
respect to the baseline geometry
In Figure 7.35 and Figure 7.36 the total pressure contours over a series of
transversal sections along the optimized intake duct are depicted for both the
hovering and forward flight conditions and they are compared with the baseline.
HC/HIT09/WP1.2/D1/A (31/10/11)
As apparent, in hover conditions the region of low total pressure occurring in the
Assessment of the optimization problem formulation and
final portion of the intake duct is less extended
application to a trial in the optimized geometry, and
problem
total pressure losses are less severe. Furthermore,
(HEAVYcOPTer D1 also
part in
II) forward flight conditions
Baseline Optimised
Reduction of total
pressure losses
Figure 37: Contours of total pressure ([Pa]) over a series of transversal sections along the
Figure 7.35:
intake Contours
duct in hoverofconditions:
total pressure ([Pa]) over
comparison a series
of the of transversal
baseline (on the left)sections along the
and optimized (on the
intake duct in hovering condition: comparisonright) solutions.
of the baseline (on the left) and optimized
(on the right) solutions.
Baseline Optimised
a reduction of the total pressure losses with respect to the baseline is evidenced, Reduction of total
pressure losses
especially in the upper portion of the intake duct and towards the AIP. As expected,
also the flow behavior over the AIP is improved in the optimized solution with
respect to the baseline, for both hovering and forward flight conditions, as apparent
from Figure 7.37 and Figure 7.38: in fact, the total pressure field is much more
uniform over the engine face in both the considered flight conditions, and the
most severe total pressure drops are eliminated in the optimized geometry. The
more favorable behavior of the optimized intake duct is confirmed also by the
visualization of the streamlines path, illustrated in Figure 7.39 and Figure 7.40
for hovering and forward flight conditions respectively. While no appreciable
differences are evidenced in the streamlines behavior with respect to the baseline
in hovering, a remarkable reduction of the vortex flow occurring in the second
Figure 38: Contours of total pressure ([Pa]) over a series of transversal sections along the
intake duct in forward flight conditions: comparison of the baseline (on the left) and optimized
(on the right) solutions.
Furthermore, also in forward flight conditions a reduction of the total pressure losses with
respect to the baseline is evidenced, especially in the upper portion of the intake duct and
towards the AIP.
As expected, also the flow behavior over the AIP is improved in the optimized solution
162Figure 37: Contours
Part of total pressure
I  Aerodynamic ([Pa])
shape over a series of
optimization of transversal
the AW101sections along
air intake ]1the
intake duct in hover conditions: comparison of the baseline (on the left) and optimized (on the
right) solutions.
Baseline Optimised
Reduction of total
pressure losses
Figure 7.36: Contours of total pressure ([Pa]) over a series of transversal sections along
Figure 38: Contours of total pressure ([Pa]) over a series of transversal sections along the
the intake
intake ductduct in forward
in forward flightflight condition:
conditions: comparison
comparison of theofbaseline
the baseline (onleft)
(on the theand
left)optimized
and
optimized (on the right) solutions. (on the right) solutions.
Furthermore, also in forward flight conditions a reduction of the total pressure losses with
bend of the Sshaped duct is achieved in forward flight conditions, due to the
respect to the baseline is evidenced, especially in the upper portion of the intake duct and
more streamlined shape of the optimized geometry with respect to the baseline.
towards the AIP.
Actually, this beneficial effect is propagated to the AIP, as illustrated in Figure 7.38.
As expected,
Finally, also the of
the comparisons flowthebehavior
baselineover andthe AIP is improved
optimized DC60 profilesin the over
optimized solution
the AIP
for
withboth hovering
respect and forward
to the baseline, for both flight
hover conditions
and forward are reported
flight in Figure
conditions, 7.41 and
as apparent from
Figure 7.42 respectively. While no appreciable modifications are shown in hover, a
remarkable reduction of the maximum DC60 value is apparent in forward flight
54 / 61 This document
conditions with respect to the
is the property baseline
of the author(s) (see Table 7.12):
organization(s) this
and shall is distributed
not be in fact very beneficial
or reproduced without their
formal approval.
from the compressor performance point of view.
Figure 39 and Figure 40: in fact, the total pressure field is much more uniform over the
Reduction of total
engine face in both the considered flight conditions, and the most severe total pressure pressure
drops losses
are eliminated in the optimized geometry.
Baseline Optimised
Reduction of total
pressure losses
Figure 7.37: Contours of total pressure ([Pa]) over a series of transversal sections along the
Figure 39: Total pressure contours ([Pa]) over the AIP in hover: comparison of baseline (on the
intake duct in hovering condition: comparison
left) and of the
optimized (on the baseline (on the left) and optimized
right) solutions.
(on the right) solutions.
Baseline Optimised
Reduction of total
pressure losses
Figure 39: Total pressure contours ([Pa]) over the AIP in hover: comparison of baseline (on the
left) and optimized (on the right) solutions.
Baseline Optimised
Reduction of total
pressure losses
Figure 40: Total pressure contours ([Pa]) over the AIP in forward flight: comparison of baseline
(on the left) and optimized (on the right) solutions.
The more favorable behavior of the optimized intake duct is confirmed also by the
visualization of the streamlines path, illustrated in Figure 41 and Figure 42 for hover and
forward flight conditions respectively. While no appreciable differences are evidenced in the
streamlines behavior with respect to the baseline in hovering, a remarkable reduction of the
Figure
vortex40: Total
flow pressure
occurring in contours
the second ([Pa])
bendoverof the
theAIP in forward
Sshaped ductflight: comparison
is achieved of baseline
in forward flight
Figure 7.38: Contours of (ontotal
the pressure ([Pa]) over
left) and optimized (ona the
series of transversal
right) solutions. sections along
the55 / 61 This
intake duct in forward
document flightofconditions:
is the property comparison
the author(s) organization(s) andof the
shall notbaseline (onor the
be distributed left) and
reproduced without their
formal approval.
The more
optimized (on thefavorable behavior of the optimized intake duct is confirmed also by the
right) solutions.
visualization of the streamlines path, illustrated in Figure 41 and Figure 42 for hover and
forward flight conditions respectively. While no appreciable differences are evidenced in the
streamlines behavior with respect to the baseline in hovering, a remarkable reduction of the
vortex flow occurring in the second bend of the Sshaped duct is achieved in forward flight
55 / 61 This document is the property of the author(s) organization(s) and shall not be distributed or reproduced without their
formal approval.
AssessmentHC/HIT09/WP1.2/D1/A
of the optimization problem formulation and
(31/10/11)
application to a trial problem
Assessment of the optimization problem formulation and
(HEAVYcOPTer
application D1 problem
to a trial part II)
(HEAVYcOPTer D1 part II)
conditions, due to the more streamlined shape of the optimized geometry with respect to the
164conditions,
Part
due Ito the
baseline. Actually, this
Aerodynamic
more effectshape
streamlined
beneficial isshape optimization
of the to
propagated optimized of the AW101
the AIP, geometry air intake
withinrespect
as illustrated Figure 40.the ]1
to
baseline. Actually, this beneficial effect is propagated to the AIP, as illustrated in Figure 40.
Baseline Optimised
Baseline Optimised
Figure 41:Streamlines
7.39:
Figure pattern
Streamlines pattern inside
inside the the air intake
air intake in comparison
in hover: hover: comparison
of baselineof(on
baseline
the (on
the left) and optimized left)
(on and
theoptimised
right) (on the right) configurations.
configurations.
Figure 41: Streamlines pattern inside the air intake in hover: comparison of baseline (on the
left) and optimised (on the right) configurations.
Baseline Optimised
Baseline Optimised
maximum DC60
Figure value is apparent
42: Streamlines in forward
pattern inside flightinconditions
the air intake forward flight:with respect
comparison to the baseline
of baseline
(on the left) and optimised (on the right) configurations.
Figure 42: Streamlines
7.40:
Figure pattern inside
the airthe airinintake
forwardin forward flight:ofcomparison of
(see Table 13): this isStreamlines
in fact pattern
very inside
beneficial from intake
the flight:
compressor comparison
performance
(on the left) and optimised (on the right) configurations.
baseline
point of view.
baseline (on the left) and optimized (on the right) configurations.
Finally, the comparisons of the baseline and optimized DC60 profiles over the AIP for
bothFinally, the forward
hover and comparisons of the baseline
flight conditions and optimized
are reported in FigureDC60 profiles
43 and Figureover the AIP for
44 respectively.
both
Whilehover and forward modifications
no appreciable flight conditions areshown
are reported
in in Figurea 43
hover, and Figurereduction
remarkable 44 respectively.
of the
56 / 61 no
While This appreciable
document is the property of the author(s)
modifications are organization(s)
shown in and shall not
hover, a beremarkable
distributed or reproduced
reduction without
of their
the
formal approval.
56 / 61 This document is the property of the author(s) organization(s) and shall not be distributed or reproduced without their
formal approval.
57 / 61 This document is the property of the author(s) organization(s) and shall not be distributed or reproduced without their
formal approval.
166 Part I  Aerodynamic shape optimization of the AW101 air intake ]1
(b) Iso
Figure 7.44: Superimposition of the baseline and the optimized intake CAD model.
Part II
Test case B:
Aerodynamic shape optimization
of the frontal region of the ERICA
tiltrotor using Ansys Fluent® as
the CFD solver
167
169
7.13 Introduction
The present work deals with the ERICA tiltrotor nose shape optimization
aimed at reducing its baseline aerodynamic drag. To this purpose, several steps
were performed in order to obtain reliable results while reducing the overall
optimization time as much as possible.
First, a study of drag sensitivity to the mesh quality was carried out (as
described in chapter 7.19) in order to find out a model capable of reproducing drag
characteristics of the tiltrotor nose with an acceptable accuracy while featuring the
smallest number of 3D elements. As a matter of fact, decreasing the number of grid
elements results in a reduction of calculation time, but, at the same time, the model
capacity to properly reproduce the aerodynamic behaviour of this component
is progressively deteriorated. Hence, the goal of this first step was to identify a
suitable model resulting from a tradeoff between these two aspects.
The second step consisted in a D.O.E. analysis over the selected CFD model,
aimed at determining which factors were most influential on the response, that
is, which design variables most influenced the nose drag characteristics. To this
purpose, a Student analysis was carried out on the independent variables. The
shape parameterization, the D.O.E. analysis and the Student test are illustrated
and discussed in chapter 7.22.
Finally, the nose aerodynamic shape optimization was performed, as discussed
in detail in chapter 7.23. As regards the optimization engine, the GeDEAII algo
rithm was selected, whose characteristics and performance were described during
chapter 2.
Next, a study on aerodynamic drag sensitivity to the grid features was carried
out as described in detail in chapter 7.19. In fact, it is well known that crosssectional
area dimensions, virtual wind tunnel box length and mesh refinement level greatly
influence the computed drag. A lot of combinations of these parameters were
tested to obtain a model characterized by an acceptable accuracy while featuring
the least possible number of cells.
Once this study was performed, the selected model was “frozen” and imported
into Altair HyperMesh® environment for the geometrical parameterization.
A D.O.E. study was then carried out with the aim of exploring the design space,
and a Student analysis was undertaken which made it possible to decrease the
number of independent design variables; hence, the total time needed for the next
GeDEAII driven optimization procedure could be reduced.
Once the independent variables to be retained were identified, the optimization
process could be addressed, which was managed by GeDEAII as the master
program.
Here some words are spent about the followed morphing strategy in this
work. In details, it was decided to parameterize the surface mesh only, and to
remesh every time the volume mesh, for the reasons explained below. Actually,
the direct volume mesh morphing may cause boundary layer prisms distortions,
leading to a deformed mesh featuring elements having negative Jacobian, even for
small displacements. Instead, this choice allowed us to overcome this morphing
limitation: it is now possible to morph only the surface mesh and then remesh
the volume at each objective function/s evaluation, with the only drawback of a
minimal increased overall optimization time.
Moreover, the surface mesh morphing, and then the volume remeshing, al
lowed to increase the morphing capabilities and therefore to enlarge the optimiza
tion search space.
The lower part of the flow chart in Figure 7.45 describes the results extraction
and elaboration. The output of the automatic optimization loop is the optimal
combination of the design variables of the individuals lying on the Pareto frontier.
At this point, the designer can identify the individuals of interest among the
multiple optimal solutions of the Pareto front and the meshed geometry of each
selected individual can be reconstructed using HyperMorph®.
The final step is the reverse engineering process, which allows obtaining the
deformed surface starting from the mesh; this process can be performed using
CATIA®.
Sensitivity
Geometry elaboration anaysis
CATIA & Tgrid Volume mesh
surface mesh
FLUENT
Parameterization
HyperMesh
Optimal mesh
model
& Parameterization
HyperMorph
D.O.E. +
Student
D.O.E. Design variables Morphed surface analysis
Hypermesh
Analysis values mesh
CFD objective
function values
FLUENT Volume mesh Tgrid
GeDEAII
Design variables Morphed surface driven
GeDEAII values
Hypermesh
mesh
optimization
CFD objective
function values
FLUENT Volume mesh Tgrid
Pareto front
optimal design
variables
combination
HyperMesh Optimal
Optimal
& individuals mesh CATIA geometries
HyperMorph reconstruction
addition to these components, a tail cone (Figure 7.48) was added to the simulated
geometry in order to avoid flow separations downstream the cylindrical portion of
the fuselage which could detrimentally affect convergence behavior of numerical
simulations.
The reader is referred to the Acronyms chapter for the definition of fuselage
incidence.
7. The object of the optimization
The scope of this work consisted in the optimization of ERICA nose, whose 1/8th scaled wind
tunnel model is172 Part II  ERICA nose shape optimization using Ansys Fluent®
depicted in Figure 2. 80091067
Numerical optimisation of ERICA tiltrotor nose Rev. A
Pag. 16 of 98
Figure
Figure 2: ERICA
7.46: ERICA nosenose geometry
geometry [7]. [74])
(taken from
in chapter 5, and will be described in detail in the following chapters.
CFD simulations were carried out on the components depicted in Figure 3.
To this purpose, a CFDbased optimization procedure was implemented, which was introduced
in chapter 5, and will be described in detail in the following chapters.
CFD simulations were carried out on the components depicted in Figure 3. 80091067
Numerical optimisation of ERICA tiltrotor nose Rev. A
Pag. 17 of 98
In addition to these components, a tail cone (Figure 4) was added to the simulated geometry in
Figureflow
order to avoid ERICA nose downstream
7.47:separations
Figure 3: ERICA (on the right) the
nose (on the right) and and cylindrical
cylindrical portion
cylindrical portion of
portion of
the fuselage
of the
(on the
thefuselage
left) [7]. (onwhich
fuselage the left)
could
(taken from [74])
detrimentally affectCopyright
convergence behaviour of numerical simulations.
– 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
Figure 3: ERICA nose (on the right) and cylindrical portion of the fuselage (on the left) [7].
Figure
Figure 4: Tail cone to ERICA
7.48:
added tail cone
the fuselage (taken from
components for[74])
CFD simulations.
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
As far as the optimization target is concerned, a reduction of 2% in the Cd of the baseline
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
ERICA
This document nose
contains was required.
confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
The reference flight conditions are summarized in Table 1.
7.16 Geometry elaboration 173
Flight True True Pressure Static OAT Density Speed Fuselage Nacelle Outer Rotor One
Condition air air alti pres [C ] [kg/m3 ] of inci atti wing RPM rotor
speed, speed, tude, sure, sound dence tude setting thrust,
[Kts] [m/s] [m] [ Pa] [m/s] [deg] [deg] angle [N]
[deg]
Forward 350 180.06 7500 38251 33.75 0.556623 310.175 1.97 0.00 0.00 425.8 12431
Flight cruise
Table 7.14: Flight Conditions for Nose optimization (taken from [74])
In CATIA® environment, the model surfaces were organized into six distinct
components, namely:
6. Tail cone, which corresponds to the tail cone surface, depicted in Figure 7.48.
A sketch of the finally selected surface mesh over the nose component is reported in Figure 6,
while the superficial mesh over the virtual wind tunnel walls is illustrated in Figure 7.
Some words are worth spending as regards the quality criteria accomplished during superficial
176 Part II  ERICA nose shape optimization using Ansys Fluent®
mesh generation. Actually, in order to achieve a good mesh quality it was necessary to define and
set proper quality parameters before starting the meshing operations; these parameters were then
be met by imposing
checked proper
during the mesh limitsAgustaWestland
generation. on Skewnessquality
and requirements
AspectRatiocanwithin
be met CATIA®.
by
Theseimposing
parameters canonbe
proper limits defined
Skewness as follows:
and AspectRatio within CATIA®.
S
QQ== 11−−S (7.10)
S′ S0
where Q is the Skewness, S is the ideal element surface, and S’ is the actual element
where Q is the Skewness, S is the ideal element surface, and S0 is the actual
surface.
element surface.
max (l1 , l2 , l3 )
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
AR = (7.11)
min (l1 , l2 , l3 )
The parameters limits specified for the ERICA model superficial mesh are summa
rized in Table 7.16. The mesh statistics of the finally selected superficial mesh with
Table 7.16: Quality parameters limits specified for ERICA surface mesh.
respect to the above mentioned criteria are summarized in Table 7.17 and Figure
7.52.
7.17 Mesh generation 177
Table 7.17: Mesh statistic for the finally selected ERICA superficial grid.
Figure 8: Histograms representing ERICA surface mesh quality statistics: AspectRatio (on the
Figure 7.52: Histograms representing ERICA(on
left); Skewness surface mesh quality statistics: AspectRatio
the right).
(on the left); Skewness (on the right).
Starting from the surface mesh described above, the volume mesh was generated by means of
7.17.2 Volume grid
the CFD meshing tool Ansys Tgrid®. Actually, the surface mesh created within CATIA® can be
Starting
saved fromcompatible
in a Nastran the surface mesh
format (.dat) described
which can beabove, thebyvolume
easily read Tgrid®. mesh was gener
atedInby means
Tgrid® of the CFD
environment, meshing
the volume toolthe
between Ansys
tiltrotorTgrid®. Actually,
surface and the surface
the windtunnel mesh
walls was
created within CATIA® can be saved in a Nastran compatible format
filled with tetrahedral elements, while the boundary layer region was modelled using prismatic (.dat) which
can be easily read by Tgrid®.
cells.
In Tgrid®
In Table environment,
5, the Tgrid® settings the volume
selected between
to generate the tiltrotor
the internal surface
volume mesh and the wind
are presented.
tunnel Ten prismatic layers were built over the tiltrotor fuselage in order to ensure that thelayer
walls was filled with tetrahedral elements, while the boundary region
simulated
was modelled
boundary using
layer was prismatic
entirely containedcells.
within In
the Table
prismatic 7.18, the
layers Tgrid®
over settings
the whole selected
fuselage, with the to
generate the internal volume mesh are presented.
exception of regions of separated flow. Moreover, a height of 1 mm was given to the first prismatic
Teninprismatic
layer order to meetlayersthewere built over for
y+ requirements thethetiltrotor fuselage
wall function in order
calculation to ensure
during the CFDthat
the simulated
simulation [4]. boundary layer was entirely contained within the prismatic layers
overAn theimportant
whole aspect
fuselage, with the exception of regions of separated flow. Moreover,
that has to be pointed out is the use of local refinement regions, which
allowed a local improvement of the volume mesh around the ERICA model, in particular near the
nose region, while a coarser tetrahedral mesh could be used in the remaining internal regions. As
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
178 Part II  ERICA nose shape optimization using Ansys Fluent®
a height of 1 mm was given to the first prismatic layer in order to meet the y+
requirements for the wall function calculation during the CFD simulation ([7]). An
important aspect that has to be pointed out is the use of local refinement regions,
which allowed a local improvement of the volume mesh around the ERICA model,
in particular near the nose region, while a coarser tetrahedral mesh could be used
in the remaining internal regions.
As a result, a really good mesh quality was obtained in the regions of interest
(that is, the nose and the cylindrical portion of the fuselage), with the minimum
number of 3D elements. A longitudinal view of the whole volume mesh is de
picted in Figure 7.53, while Figure 7.54 illustrates a closeup of the mesh near the
tiltrotor surface, where the refinement regions around the fuselage can be clearly
appreciated. Finally, a particular of the boundary layer over the canopy80091067
is reported
in Figure 7.55. Numerical optimisation of ERICA tiltrotor nose Rev. A
Pag. 25 of 98
Figure 9: Longitudinal view of the whole volumetric mesh around the tiltrotor fuselage.
Figure 7.53: Longitudinal view of the whole volumetric mesh around the tiltrotor fuselage.
Figure 9: Longitudinal view of the whole volumetric mesh around the tiltrotor fuselage.
7.18 Fluiddynamic model set up 179
80091067
Figure 10: Closeup of the volume mesh near the fuselage.
Figure 7.54: Closeup
Numericalofoptimisation
the volumeofmesh
ERICAnear the nose
tiltrotor fuselage.
Rev. A
Pag. 26 of 98
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
Figure 11: Closeup of the volume mesh: boundary layer over the canopy.
Figure 7.55: Closeup of the volume mesh: boundary layer over the canopy.
A adopted
pressurebased solver type
for the tiltrotor simulations. − ω SST
The kwith absolute
model wasvelocity
selected forformulation and
turbulence handling. steady
approach The was
air wasadopted
treated as an for the
ideal gastiltrotor simulations.
having constant specific heats,The − ω SSTenables
whichκautomatically model was
the equation energy resolution. This makes it possible to include the compressibility effects in the
selected for turbulence handling. The air was treated as an ideal gas having
numerical simulations: in fact, as it can be deduced from Table 1, the flight condition selected for
constant specific heats, which automatically enables the equation energy resolution.
optimization features a moderately high Mach number. In Table 6, the air properties assigned for
This makes it possible to include the compressibility effects in the numerical
the ERICA nose optimization are summarized.
simulations: in fact, as it can be deduced from Table 7.14, the flight condition
As far as the solution algorithm is concerned, a SIMPLE scheme was adopted, which solves the
selected for optimization features a moderately high Mach number.
pressure and moment equations separately. A third order MUSCL discretization scheme was
Inselected
Table for 7.19,
all thethe air properties
variables, assigned
since it guarantees a high for the of
accuracy ERICA nosesolution,
the numerical optimization
due to are
summarized.
its potential As far asspatial
to improve the accuracy
solution algorithm
by reducing is concerned,
numerical a SIMPLE
diffusion, particularly for complexscheme
was adopted,
threedimensionalwhich flows, solves
while not the pressure
negatively andthemoment
affecting equations
total time requested separately. A
for simulations
third when
order MUSCL
compared to thediscretization
second order upwind scheme
scheme. was selected for all the variables, since
it guarantees a high
In particular, for the accuracy
gradient spatialof discretization,
the numerical solution,
the GreenGauss due
node basedtodiscretization
its potential to
improve spatial accuracy by reducing numerical diffusion, particularly forcell
scheme was chosen instead of the more common GreenGauss cell based or Least squares complex
threedimensional
based schemes, because flows,it iswhile not negatively
more suitable for unstructuredaffecting
tetrahedral the
meshtotal
[4], astime requested
is the case
for simulations when compared to the second order upwind scheme. In particular,
for theCopyright
gradient – 2007 spatial discretization,
Agusta SpA, the Ltd,
Westland Helicopters GreenGauss node based
Westland Transmissions discretization
Ltd and AgustaWestland
scheme was chosen
International instead
Ltd. (Collectively knownof asthe more common GreenGauss cell based or Least
“AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
180 Part II  ERICA nose shape optimization using Ansys Fluent®
squares cell based schemes, because it is more suitable for unstructured tetrahedral
mesh [7], as is the case for the tiltrotor fuselage simulation.
These quantities were determined applying the ideal gas laws to the data of Table
7.14; in fact, from the static temperature (T∞ in [K], corresponding to the OAT
given in Table 7.14) and the velocity (V∞ , the True air speed) the operating Mach
number (Ma∞ ) was calculated as:
V∞
Ma∞ = √ (7.12)
kRT∞
where k is the specific heats ratio (1.4 for dry air) and R is the gas constant
(287 [ J/(kg · K )] for dry air). The resulting operating Mach number is 0.5806. The
following equations were used to calculate the total pressure and total temperature
at the inlet:
k −1
k−1
k
2
PT = P∞ 1 + Ma∞ (7.13)
2
k−1
2
TT = T∞ 1 + Ma∞ (7.14)
2
being P∞ the static pressure given in Table 7.14. Subtracting the value of the
reference pressure to the total pressure calculated with Equation 7.13, we obtained
a gauge total pressure of 9811.29 [Pa], while the resulting total temperature from
Equation 7.14 was 255.54 [K].
Table 7.21 summarizes the settings for the pressure inlet boundary condition.
The pressure outlet boundary condition requires the specification of the gauge
static pressure and the backflow total temperature at the outlet surfaces: a relative
zero gauge pressure (corresponding to the undisturbed value) and a backflow
total temperature equal to the inlet static temperature were chosen. Table 7.22
summarizes the settings for the pressure outlet boundary condition on the outlet
surfaces. Regarding the turbulence specification method, a turbulence intensity
of 1% was selected. As far as the turbulent length scale is concerned, the final
selected value 0.5 [m] was the result of an iterative calculation process. In fact, the
turbulent length scale can be defined as ωκ . Hence, the values of κ and ω were
p
2. Once the proper crosssectional area was selected, the influence of the box
length was analysed.
4. Finally, the influence of the volume mesh refinement on the objective function
value was considered, and the final model was selected.
In Figure 12, a graphical representation of the nose drag sensitivity to crosssectional area is
Table 7.23: Drag sensitivity to wind tunnel crosssectional area dimensions.
illustrated.
Figure 12:7.56:
Figure Nose dragdrag
Nose sensitivity to to
sensitivity crosssectional
crosssectional area.
area.
Wind tunnel dimensions [m] Nose pressure DRAG [ N ] Nose viscous DRAG [ N ] Total nose DRAG [ N ]
BOX4=80x80x110 [m3 ] Length=110 m, 22 m upstream the fuselage 643 663 1316
BOX4=80x80x125 [m3 ] Length=125 m, 40 m upstream the fuselage 636 660 1299
BOX4=80x80x145 [m3 ] Length=145 m, 60 m upstream the fuselage 638 662 1300
BOX4=80x80x180 [m3 ] Length=180 m, 80 m upstream the fuselage 646 660 1306
80091067
Table 7.24: Drag sensitivity to windtunnel box length.
Numerical optimisation of ERICA tiltrotor nose Rev. A
Pag. 33 of 98
As apparent, the nose drag change is nearly negligible when refining the superficial mesh over
the first column the superficial grid refinement is reported, with the first number
the nose and cylindrical fuselage. On the other hand, with the refined superficial mesh the total
representing the mesh size of the nose component, the second one the mesh size of
number the
of volume cells
fuselage rises up to and
component, 4.5 millions of elements.
the third Hence,
one the mesh due
size of to computational
the reasons,
tail component. As
the less refined superficial mesh was retained, with 30 [mm], 40 [mm] and 80 [mm] element size
over the nose, cylindrical fuselage and tail cone respectively.
Superficial mesh refinement [m] Nose pressure DRAG [ N ] Nose viscous DRAG [ N ] Total nose DRAG [ N ]
304080 [mm] 643 663 1316
203040 [mm] 644 668 1318
Superficial mesh Pressure DRAG [N] Viscous DRAG [N] Total DRAG [N]
Refinement [mm] Table 7.25: Drag sensitivity to superficial mesh size.
304080 643 663 1316
203080
apparent, the nose drag change 644is nearly negligible 668when refining the 1313
superficial
mesh over the nose Table
and12:cylindrical
Drag sensitivity to superficial
fuselage. On themesh
othersize.
hand, with the refined
superficial mesh the total number of volume cells rises up to 4.5 millions of
elements.
Finally, Hence,
the effects due
of the to computational
volume grid refinement reasons, the less refined
were investigated. It wassuperficial mesh
realized that the
was retained, with 30 [mm], 40 [mm] and 80 [mm] element size over the
volume grid refinement has a great influence on the nose drag. In particular, drag was found to
nose,
cylindrical fuselage and tail cone respectively.
decrease with decreasing growth rate of tetrahedral elements, which governs the transition of the
Finally, the effects of the volume grid refinement were investigated. It was
elements size from the inner region of the domain (near to the prismatic layers) to the external
region. Hence, a sensitivity analysis was performed, in order to highlight the influence of this
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
7.20 Validation of the CFD model 185
realized that the volume grid refinement has a great influence on the nose drag. In
particular, drag was found to decrease with decreasing growth rate of tetrahedral
elements, which governs the transition of the elements size from the inner region of
the domain (near to the prismatic layers) to the external region. Hence, a sensitivity
analysis was performed, in order to highlight the influence of this parameter
on the drag value, keeping the wind tunnel dimensions fixed to 80x80x110 [m3 ]
and holding the superficial grid element size unchanged to the 304080 [mm]
combination. Results are reported in Table 7.26.
Volume mesh refinement Nose pressure DRAG [ N ] Nose viscous DRAG [ N ] Total nose DRAG [ N ]
Growth Ratio: 1.6 643 663 1316
Growth Ratio: 1.2 253 665 918
Table 7.26: Volume mesh refinement influence on the nose drag characteristics.
As apparent, while the viscous drag is nearly insensitive to the volume grid
refinement, the pressure component decreases with increasing refinement. Given
that the number of elements in the latter configuration rises up to 4.4 millions, a
further refinement was not taken in consideration, because a further increase in the
amount of mesh elements would have become prohibitive from the computational
time point of view. Moreover, the validation of the model with growth ratio equal
to 1.2 gave satisfactory results, as will be illustrated in chapter 7.20, so this model
was retained for the optimization study.
Hence, the finally selected model, which was then used in the following vali
dation analysis, is the 80x80x110 [m3 ] wind tunnel box, 304080 [mm] superficial
element size, with volumetric growth ratio equal to 1.2. Once the model was
selected, the y+ characteristics of the associated CFD solution were investigated.
In Figure 7.58, the y+ distribution over the tiltrotor fuselage is illustrated.
As apparent, the selected parameters for grid generation were shown to guar
antee that the nondimensional mesh thickness at the fuselage surface fell within
the discretization levels (y+ = 30 ÷ 300) suggested for the standard wall functions
implemented in the conventional turbulence models to work properly, in partic
ular over the nose region, where the fluiddynamic quantities necessary for the
optimization objective function evaluation are calculated.
FigureFigure Contours
7.58:14: Contoursof
ofwall y+over
wall y+ overthethe ERICA
ERICA fuselage.
fuselage.
aircraft and the isolated components was carried out in [73]. Specifically, the
contribution of each component to the model global aerodynamic coefficients was
9. Validation of the CFD model
highlighted, with the main objective of investigating the aircraft drag breakdown.
Actually, the above data
Some experimental mentioned experimental
on a nonpowered observations
1/8 scaled refer modular
ERICA tiltrotor to specified
modelvalues
were
of Reynolds
available from aand Mach
series of lownumbers
speed windtypical
tunnel of theperformed
tests wind tunnel environment
in the framework and ofofthe
of WP4.4 the
scaled model
NICETRIP dimensions.
Project In [73],
(FP6/Aeronautics anAIP5CT2006030944).
project extrapolation of theThe wind tunnel measured
experimental campaign
dataheld
was on the model scaled
at Politecnico tiltrotor
di Milano and splitwas
into carried outphases,
three major in order to infer
in which somemodel
different basic
aerodynamic characteristics of the full scale aircraft: viscosity and compressibility
configurations were tested. An exhaustive analysis of the acquired aerodynamic coefficients of
effects
both the were
whole accounted for isolated
aircraft and the by means of some
components wasempirical
carried outcorrelations published
in [10]. Specifically, the
in the literature. Starting from the experimental measurements, the lift
contribution of each component to the model global aerodynamic coefficients was highlighted, with
and drag
coefficients of the main aircraft components in airplane mode were derived at
the main objective of investigating the aircraft’s drag breakdown. Actually, the above mentioned
typical full scale cruise Reynolds and Mach numbers. Then, their cumulative effect
experimental observations refer to specified values of Reynolds and Mach numbers typical of the
on the global aerodynamic coefficients of the aircraft was evaluated.
wind tunnel environment and of the scaled model dimensions. In [11], an extrapolation of the wind
In this chapter, a validation of the tiltrotor CFD model selected for the opti
tunnel measured data on the model scaled tiltrotor was carried out in order to infer some basic
mization runs was performed against wind tunnel data over the bare fuselage.
aerodynamic characteristics of the full scale aircraft: viscosity and compressibility effects were
Specifically, the geometry and mesh were scaled down to the actual 1/8 wind
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
tunnel model dimensions and the fluid dynamic simulation was carried out at
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
the experimental conditions, with an incidence angle equal to that selected for
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
theThisoptimization
document contains confidentialruns.
proprietary Then,
information andthe simulated
is supplied fuselage
on the express condition that it may not drag
be disclosed,was compared
reproduced In whole or in part, or with
used for anythe
purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
experimental acquisitions. As will be illustrated in the following, a good agreement
of the calculated drag with experiments was found at wind tunnel conditions.
When taking into account the effects of both fullscale Reynolds and Mach number
at real flight conditions on the aerodynamic coefficients, this simulation served as
a validation of the numerical model to be used in the optimization phase. Actually,
being the fuselage drag at wind tunnel conditions captured with a satisfactory
7.20 Validation of the CFD model 187
accuracy, the CFD model was judged capable of properly reproducing the tiltrotor
aerodynamic behaviour even at the fullscale conditions proper of the optimization
runs.
In Table 7.27, the flowfield characteristics of the selected test case for validation
at modelscaled conditions are summarized, in terms of flow static pressure and
temperature, Reynolds number referred to the wing mean aerodynamic chord and
Mach number.
The same fluid dynamic set up of the optimization runs was used for the
model validation. In particular, a pressurebased solver type with absolute velocity
formulation and steady approach was selected for the simulations. The κ − ω SST
model was chosen as the viscous model with turbulence intensity equal to 1%, and
the air was treated as an ideal gas having constant specific heats. The boundary
conditions were as follows: a total pressure condition was imposed on the wind
tunnel inlet, while a static pressure was assigned over the outlet section, the actual
values of both depending on the data of Table 7.27: to all the lateral surfaces of the
wind tunnel and to its top and bottom surfaces a symmetry condition was applied.
The fuselage surface was treated as a hydraulically smooth, adiabatic wall.
The adopted boundary conditions for the modelscaled case are summarized
in Table 7.28.
Model Scale
total pressure [ Pa] 99119.72
INLET static pressure [ Pa] 97956
total temperature [K ] 295.2
static pressure [ Pa] 97956
OUTLET
backflow total temperature [K ] 295.2
Table 7.28: Boundary conditions on the fluid domain for the validation case.
In Table 7.29, the fuselage drag coefficients of the modelscaled tiltrotor coming
from the simulations is reported and compared to the experimental one. The
drag was predicted with a satisfactory accuracy, leading to a percentage error
of 9 % with respect to the wind tunnel value, which is considered good for the
optimization purposes.
In Figure 7.59, the experimental drag curve of the tiltrotor fuselage is depicted,
along with the obtained CFD results.
Table 7.29: Modelscaled tiltrotor fuselage drag coefficient: simulations vs. experiments.
80091067
Numerical optimisation of ERICA tiltrotor nose Rev. A
Pag. 38 of 98
CD of the tiltrotor fuselage
0.070
0.060
0.050
Experiment
0.040 Simulation
CD
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.000
‐20 ‐10 0 10 20 30
alpha [deg]
Figure 15: Modelscaled tiltrotor fuselage drag curve: simulations vs. experiments.
Figure 7.59: Modelscaled tiltrotor fuselage drag curve: simulations vs. experiments.
Given that the correlation with modelscaled experiment was accurately cap
tured, the CFD model was judged accurate enough also when transposing the
results at the higher Reynolds and Mach number proper of the operating flight
conditions, at which the nose optimization was carried out.
7.21 Parameterization 189
7.21 Parameterization
Once the baseline CFD solution was available, the geometry parameterization
was carried out. This operation is of outstanding importance in the optimiza
tion process and it can be performed using various techniques. For the scope
of the present work, the commercial software HyperMesh® was chosen as the
parameterization tool, due to the really strong and versatile capabilities of the
morphing tool HyperMorph®. The choice of this software is mainly justified with
its effectiveness and ease of use, which allows the user to build up complicated
parametric models in a short time by means of a graphical user interface. Moreover,
the parameterization procedure in HyperMorph® is very general, in the sense that
it is independent from the peculiar model (either FEM or CFD) which is the object
of the optimization analysis. Therefore, whatever the geometry, the user is always
allowed to use the same morphing strategies, again saving a lot of working time.
Both those characteristics are fundamental in an industrial context, where time is
always an essential issue.
The strategy chosen to correctly perform the parameterization can be summa
rized with the following steps:
1. Importation of the baseline case file (i.e., the model 304080, 80x80x110,
growth ratio 1.2) into HyperMesh® in Nastran Format.
2. Creation of the desired shapes, starting from the baseline geometry, through
the morphing techniques available within HyperMorph®. For CFD studies,
the more suitable strategy is the domainshandles approach to perform
localized deformation, and the morphvolumes approach to satisfy global
morphing requirements.
3. Saving of the generated shapes; with this operation, HyperMorph® stores the
current handles − nodes perturbations allowing the user to apply them to
the undeformed model with any given scaling factor. With this method, the
scaling factor of any generated shape can be dealt with as a design variable
by an optimization algorithm.
5. Saving of the current parameterized model into an .hm file, which will be
then exploited for the batchmode parameterization.
unchanged. In other
cylindrical portionwords, all the
of the fuselage and nodes over
the tail cone both
were kept the fuselage
unchanged. and
In other thealltail
words, the cone
Figure 16: Fixed nodes over the fuselage and tail surfaces.
Figure 7.60: Fixed nodes over the fuselage and tail surfaces.
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
In addition, tangency
International constraints
Ltd. (Collectively between the nose component and the cylin
known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
drical portion of the fuselage were introduced, by means of the Set Biasing option
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
2. sh3: this shape consisted of the nose stretching along the negative direction
of the xaxis. The deformation range was given a value of 0 ÷ 0.5[m]. It is
shown in Figure 7.62;
3. sh4: this shape consisted of an initial deformation along zaxis in the nose
region near the windscreen (Figure 7.63). It was given an initial deformation
range of ±0.15 [m], due to pilot visibility constraints;
6. sh8sh9: this shape was similar to the sh1sh2 one, but a wider portion of
the canopy was involved in this case: in fact, the rotational axes were moved
upstream (Figure 7.66).The initial deformation range assigned to this variable
was equal to ±15 [deg];
7. sh10sh11: this was a symmetrical shape, conceived to deform the nose region
along yaxis, as shown in Figure 7.67. It was given an initial deformation
range of ±0.3[m];
8. sh12sh13: this shape was similar to the previous one, but it regarded a
portion of the nose located downstream. The initially selected deformation
range was equal to ±0.1 [m]. It is shown in Figure 7.68 (the arrows are small
when compared to the ones of the previous shape, since they are proportional
to the shape displacement);
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
80091067
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
Numerical optimisation of ERICA tiltrotor nose Rev. A
Pag. 43 of 98
80091067
Numerical optimisation of ERICA tiltrotor nose Rev. A
Pag. 44 of 98
Figure 19: Shape sh4 definition.
Figure 7.63: Shape sh4 definition. 80091067
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland
NumericalHelicopters
optimisationLtd, Westland
of ERICA Transmissions
tiltrotor nose Ltd
Rev. A and AgustaWestland
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”) Pag. 44 of 98
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
80091067
Numerical optimisation of ERICA tiltrotor nose Rev. A
Pag. 45 of 98
80091067
Numerical optimisation of ERICA tiltrotor nose Rev. A
Pag. 45 of 98
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
80091067 80091067
Numerical
Numerical optimisation
optimisation of ERICAoftiltrotor
ERICAnose
tiltrotor Rev.
nose A Rev. A
7.22 D.O.E. and Student analysis 195
Pag. 46 of 98Pag. 46 of 98
Figure Figure 7.68:
24: Shape Shape definition.
sh12sh13 sh12sh13 definition.
Figure 24: Shape sh12sh13 definition.
central
Copyright and part of the
all other rightsflow chart
in this reported
document in Figure
are vested 7.45. Each program involved in the
in AgustaWestland.
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
loop is interfaced and other synchronized
than for which it is supplied, without the written consent ofso
with the others that, when one program is
AgustaWestland.
running, the following one waits until the preceding execution is complete. This
allows to generate an input/output chain, in which each program uses the output
of the preceding software as its own input.
196 Part II  ERICA nose shape optimization using Ansys Fluent®
2. The design variables set are then imported, one at a time, into HyperMesh®,
which, in turn, performs the shape parameterization according to the received
values by means of its dedicated tool HyperMorph®. To this purpose, a tcl
file Command.tcl was prepared to carry out these operations. The command
that allows to launch HyperMesh® in batch mode in Windows® environment
is the following:
\emph{[path]/hmbatch.exe c<Command.tcl>
4. Ansys Fluent® performs the CFD run and returns the objective function
values to the D.O.E. code, which, in turn, provides Altair HyperMesh® with
the next set of design variables; then, the loop starts again. A dedicated
journal file, Fluentbatch.jou, is used to launch Ansys Fluent® in batch mode:
the journal file can be found in Appendix C.5.
In the present work, each variable was given a normalized deformation range
equal to ±1, where +1 corresponds to the upper variable value and 1 to the lower
variable value (the true range of each variable was indicated in chapter 7.21).
Once all the calculations have been performed, the sets of the design variables,
along with the correspondent values of the nose drag (computed in Ansys Fluent®
environment), were transferred to the Matlab® Student.m file. Student.m file, which
supervises the entire Student analysis block, can be found in Appendix C.7.
7.22 D.O.E. and Student analysis 197
Actually, the most influential factors on the objective function were determined
using a statistical analysis based on the tStudent parameter:
 x1 − x2 
t= (7.15)
σ
being x1 the mean value of the objective function for the upper set, namely
the set of configurations where the investigated variable is given the upper value
(i.e., from the mean value, 0, to the upper value, +1); x2 is the mean value of
the objective function for the lower set, (i.e., the set of configurations where the
investigated variable is given the lower values, from 0 to 1), and σ the standard
deviation, defined as follows:
v
u ∑n1 ( x1i − x¯1 )2 + ∑n2 ( x2i − x¯2 )2 (n1 + n2 )
u
i =1 i =1
σ= (7.16)
t
( n1 + n2 − 2) n1 n2
where x1i and x2i are the objective functions of the ith configuration of the upper
and lower set respectively, and n1 and n2 are the cardinalities of the upper and
lower configuration sets.
As it is well known, the tStudent parameter assesses whether the means of two
groups are statistically different from each other, and it is defined in such a way
that the bigger its value, the higher the difference between the two populations, and
hence the higher the response variation caused by the corresponding parameter.
Therefore, a design variable with an associated high value of tStudent parameter
is expected to have a higher influence on the response than a variable with a lower
80091067
Student parameter. The results of optimisation
Numerical the Studentofanalysis on the
ERICA tiltrotor tiltrotor
nose nose drag
Rev. A
are reported in Figure 7.70. Pag. 50 of 98
sh3 0 0 0.5
sh5 0 0 0.2
sh6sh7 0 0 0
920
Total drag
910
900
880
870
860
0 1 2 3
Number of generations
The objective function values for both the baseline and the optimized nose
geometries are reported in Table 7.31, where the total drag, along with the pressure
and viscous components are reported. As apparent, the optimization has led to a
significant reduction of the pressure drag, while keeping the viscous component
substantially unchanged. The design variables values of the optimized configura
tion are summarized in Table 7.32, where both the absolute and normalized values
are reported (one has to remember that a normalized value equal to 1 means that
the corresponding variable assumes the upper allowed value of the range). Except
for design variables sh3 and sh8sh9, all the other variables were given a value near
200 Part II  ERICA nose shape optimization using Ansys Fluent®
Figure 7.72: Geometrical comparison between the baseline and the optimized nose config
urations: longitudinal view (top) and top view (bottom).
Total nose drag [N] Pressure component [N] Viscous component [N]
Baseline 918 253 665
Optimized 862 192 669
Table 7.31: Objective function values for the baseline and optimized nose configurations.
Table 7.32: Absolute and normalized design variables values of the optimized configura
tion.
sh3, which governs the nose deformation along the longitudinal x axis, takes an
intermediate value between lower and upper limits. This can be explained as long
as a compromise between pressure and skin friction drag components is to be
achieved when the minimum drag is searched for. The pressure coefficient and skin
friction coefficient contours over both the baseline and optimized nose geometries
are illustrated in Figure 7.73 and Figure 7.74 respectively. A series of cuts over
both the baseline and the optimized geometry were performed along the planes
depicted in Figure 7.75 in order to better analyze the pressure and viscous drag
7.23 Optimization study: discussion of results 201
80091067
Numerical optimisation of ERICA tiltrotor nose Rev. A
Pag. 55 of 98
pressure drag between x=1.5 m and x=3 m. However this does not affect the overall pressure
drag, which is in fact reduced.
80091067
Numerical optimisation of ERICA tiltrotor nose Rev. A
Pag. 55 of 98
pressure drag between x=1.5 m and x=3 m. However this does not affect the overall pressure
drag, which is in fact reduced.
Figure 29: Pressure coefficient contours over the baseline configuration (left) and the optimized
Figure 7.73: Pressure coefficient contours over
configuration the baseline configuration (left) and the
(right).
optimized configuration (right).
Figure 29: Pressure coefficient contours over the baseline configuration (left) and the optimized
configuration (right).
Figure 30: Skin friction coefficient contours over baseline configuration (left) and the optimized
configuration (right).
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
Figure 30: Skin friction coefficient contours over baseline configuration (left) and the optimized
Figure 7.74: Skin friction coefficient contours(right).
configuration over baseline configuration (left) and the
optimized configuration (right).
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
202 Part II  ERICA nose shape optimization using Ansys Fluent®
components on the fuselage nose and identify the reasons of improvement of the
objective function featured by the optimized configuration. To this purpose, the
local values of both pressure and viscous drag of the optimal solution over the
above mentioned planes are illustrated in Figure 32 and Figure 33 respectively,
and compared with the baseline geometry. These values were obtained using the
following formulae:
(7.18)
Dv ( x ) = τx DAy + DAz (local skin − f riction drag)
where p is the local value of pressure, DA x the local surface Area projection
normal to the xaxis, τ is the local shear stress (resolved along its xaxis component),
and DAy and DAz the local surface Area projection normal to the yaxis and z
axis, respectively. As apparent, the zones where pressure and viscous drag are
generated can be deduced by analyzing the behaviour of D p and Dv . From Figure
PLANE F
PLANE E
30 deg
PLANE D
PLANE C
5 deg
5 deg PLANE B
30 deg
PLANE A
Figure 7.75: Visualization of the planes selected for pressure and viscous drag analysis.
7.76, it can be argued that the main difference between original and optimized
configuration, in terms of pressure drag, originates close to planes “C” and “D”,
where smaller values in the pressure drag can be found between x=1.5 m and x=3
m on the pressure side of the nose. On the contrary, in plane “F” the optimized
solution exhibits slightly higher values of the pressure drag between x=1.5 m and
x=3 m. However this does not affect the overall pressure drag, which is in fact
reduced. On the other hand, from Figure 7.77, it can be deduced that the original
and optimized configuration are almost equivalent in terms of viscous drag. In fact,
the curves over the planes “A” and “E” are almost coincident, while on plane “F”
the optimized solution exhibits higher values of the viscous drag between x=1.5 m
80091067
Numerical
7.23 Optimization study: optimisation
discussion of ERICA tiltrotor nose
of results Rev. A
203
Pag. 57 of 98
PLANE A PLANE B
25 25
Pressure drag ‐x component [N]
Pressure cdrag‐x component [N]
20 20
OPTIMIZED
OPTIMIZED BASELINE
15 15
BASELINE
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
‐5 ‐5
x [m] x [m]
PLANE C PLANE D
25 25
Pressure cdrag‐x component [N]
Pressure drag ‐x component [N]
20 20
OPTIMIZED
OPTIMIZED
15 BASELINE 15
BASELINE
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
‐5 ‐5
x [m] x [m]
PLANE E PLANE F
25 25
Pressure cdrag‐x component [N]
Pressure cdrag‐x component [N]
20 20
OPTIMIZED OPTIMIZED
15 15 NASELINE
BASELINE
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
‐5 ‐5
x [m] x [m]
Figure 32: Pressure drag component over the selected planes: comparison of baseline and
Figure 7.76: Pressure drag component
optimizedover the selected planes: comparison of baseline
configurations.
and optimized configurations.
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
and x=3 m. However, over planes “B”, “C” and “D” the viscous component of the
optimized solution is smaller than the baseline between x=1.5 m and x=4 m and
slightly higher between x=4m and x=5.5 m. This results in an overall compensation
of the viscous drag, which is in fact nearly unchanged from the baseline to the
optimized solution.
204 Part II  ERICA nose shape optimization using Ansys Fluent®
80091067
Numerical optimisation of ERICA tiltrotor nose Rev. A
Pag. 57 of 98
PLANE A PLANE B
25 25
Pressure drag ‐x component [N]
Pressure cdrag‐x component [N]
20 20
OPTIMIZED
OPTIMIZED BASELINE
15 15
BASELINE
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
‐5 ‐5
x [m] x [m]
PLANE C PLANE D
25 25
Pressure cdrag‐x component [N]
Pressure drag ‐x component [N]
20 20
OPTIMIZED
OPTIMIZED
15 BASELINE 15
BASELINE
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
‐5 ‐5
x [m] x [m]
PLANE E PLANE F
25 25
Pressure cdrag‐x component [N]
Pressure cdrag‐x component [N]
20 20
OPTIMIZED OPTIMIZED
15 15 NASELINE
BASELINE
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
‐5 ‐5
x [m] x [m]
Figure 32: Pressure drag component over the selected planes: comparison of baseline and
Figure 7.77: Viscous drag component overconfigurations.
optimized the selected planes: comparison of baseline and
optimized configurations.
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
7.24 Reverse Engineering Procedure in CATIA® V5 205
discontinuity interface between the nose and the windscreen. In addition to planes
normal to the x direction, three more planes were created:
• Plane 10: it derives from a rotation of 1.97 deg (equal to the fuselage inci
dence) of the xy plane around the yaxis and passes through the point at the
top of the nose;
First, the Planar Section tool was used in order to extract sections of the stl
model over the above mentioned planes. Then, using the Curve from Scan tool,
the pertinent curves were generated with a defined tolerance and with the least
possible number of segments of the least possible order. The tolerance value must
be accurately selected, since a too low value may detrimentally affect the quality
of the generated curves and consequently of the derived surfaces. During curve
creation, the user may select particularly meaningful points, for instance the point
at the top of the nose or the intersection between plane 5 and the zx plane. In the
following, the curves generated from sections 1 to 9 will be referred to as group 1,
while those generated from planes 10 to 12 will be referred to as group 2.
curves generated from sections 1 to 9 will be referred to as group 1, while those generated from
planes 10 to 12 will be referred to as group 2.
The group 1 curves were then split using planes zx, 10, 11 and 12: this operation is represented
in Figure 34.
206 Part II  ERICA nose shape optimization using Ansys Fluent®
Figure 34: The reverse engineering procedure: cyan curves represent the group 1, while black
Figure 7.78: The reverse engineering procedure: cyan curves represent the group 1, while
curves represent the group 2.
black curves represent the group 2.
In addition to these operations, the region between the nose and the windscreen was handled in
The group 1 curves were then split using planes zx, 10, 11 and 12: this operation
a peculiar way. As a matter of fact, in order to respect the original variation of curvature between
is represented in Figure 7.78.
the nose and the windscreen surfaces, some points were added to these curves. A particular of
In addition to these operations, the region between the nose and the windscreen
this operation regarding
was handled in curve generated
a peculiar way. using plane 11 is depicted in Figure 35. A spline was
created using the Asabove
a matter mentioned
of fact, points,
in order thatto isrespect
representedthe original in Figure 36 (colored
variation in red), along
of curvature
with the other between
construction the nose lines.and the windscreen surfaces, some points were added to these
The tool MultiSection Surface of
curves. A particular in this operation regarding
the Generative Shape Design curvemodule generated was usingfinally plane
exploited to
11 is depicted in
create surfaces from the previously generated curves. Figure 7.79. A spline was created using the above mentioned
points, that is represented in Figure 7.80 (colored in red), along with the other
As mentioned before, only half of the model was recreated, therefore the surfaces in the
construction lines. The tool MultiSection Surface in the Generative Shape Design
symmetry zone have to be tangent to the yaxis. Triangular parts near the top of the nose were
module was finally exploited to create surfaces from the previously generated
filled in suchcurves. a way to Asguarantee
mentioned tangency
before, to onlythe half
previously
of the createdmodel was surfaces.
recreated, therefore
The complete model was finally obtained
the surfaces in the symmetry zone have to be tangent to the yaxis. using symmetry. The upper and front views of the
Triangular
optimized geometry parts near arethe depicted
top of the in Figure
nose were 37. filled in such a way to guarantee tangency to
the previously created surfaces. The complete model was finally obtained using
symmetry. The upper and front views of the optimized geometry are depicted in
Copyright –Figure 2007 Agusta7.81. Once SpA,the optimized
Westland model has
Helicopters Ltd,been reconstructed,
Westland in orderLtd
Transmissions to and
evaluateAgustaWestland
Internationalthe Ltd.geometrical
(Collectivelydifferences between the optimized and the baseline configurations,
known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this documentItare
a comparison was performed. consisted
vested ininAgustaWestland.
an overlap of the two CAD models.
The superimposition of the baseline and the optimized
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not beCAD
disclosed,models
reproduced Inis depicted
whole or in part, or in
used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
Figure 7.82.
7.24 Reverse Engineering Procedure in CATIA® V5 207
80091067
Numerical optimisation of ERICA tiltrotor nose Rev. A
Pag. 61 of 98
80091067
Numerical optimisation of ERICA tiltrotor nose Rev. A
Pag. 61 of 98
Figure 35: The point introduced during the curve creation in order to respect the original variation
Figure 7.79: The point introduced during
of thethe curve creation in order to respect the original
curvature.
variation of the curvature.
Figure 35: The point introduced during the curve creation in order to respect the original variation
of the curvature.
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
Figure
Figure36: TheThe
7.80: cockpit construction
cockpit lines.
construction lines.
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
208 Part II  ERICA nose shape optimization using Ansys Fluent®
80091067
Numerical optimisation of ERICA tiltrotor nose Rev. A
Pag. 62 of 98
80091067
Numerical optimisation of ERICA tiltrotor nose Rev. A
Pag. 63 of 98
Copyright – 2007 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and AgustaWestland
International Ltd. (Collectively known as “AgustaWestland”)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
This document contains confidential proprietary information and is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced In whole or in part, or used for any purpose
other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of AgustaWestland.
Plan Plan Plan Plan Plane Plane Plane Plane Plane Plane Plane Plane Plane
e zy e zy e zy e zy zy 5 zy 6 zy 7 zy 8 zy 9 zy 10 zy 11 zy 12 zy 13
1 2 3 4
1142 1312 1542 1942 2342 2742 3100 3500 3900 4300 4700 5100 5500
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
Test case C:
Aerodynamic shape optimization
of the frontal region of the ERICA
tiltrotor using OpenFOAM® as
the CFD solver
209
211
7.25 Introduction
The present work deals with the ERICA tiltrotor nose shape optimization aimed
at reducing its baseline aerodynamic drag. Unlike the optimization work presented
in Part II, now a different CAD and mesh model will be addressed.
OpenFOAM® CFD opensource code was exploited to calculate aerodynamic
behavior of the model that underwent the optimization process.
Moreover, the visibility constraints were strictly taken into account via a proce
dure described in Appendix B.
Several steps were performed in order to obtain reliable results while reducing
the overall optimization time as much as possible. First, the baseline model was
built up. To do this, the superficial mesh was first built in CATIA® environment,
and the parameterization performed with Altair Hypermesh®. Finally, the related
.hm file was built. The latter was subsequently managed in batchmode via a script
similar to that presented in Appendix C.3.
The second step consisted in the nose aerodynamic shape optimization driven
by GeDEAII presented in Chapter 2.
As it was said above, this optimization test case featured an opensource CFD
code, that is OpenFOAM®.
Both the features and the framework of this powerful solver are presented in
Appendix D so as to make the understanding of this test case simpler.
Volume mesh
Parameterization
Optimal mesh
Parameterization
model
GeDEAII driven
optimization
CFD objective
Volume mesh
function values
Pareto front
optimal design
variables
combination
Optimal
Optimal
individuals mesh
geometries
reconstruction
Figure 7.83: Flow chart of the complete optimization procedure accommodating Open
FOAM as the CFD colver.
process and it can be performed using various techniques. For the scope of the
present work, the commercial software HyperMesh® was chosen as the parameter
ization tool, due to the really strong and versatile capabilities of the morphing tool
HyperMorph®.
Here some words are spent about the followed morphing strategy in this work.
In details, it was decided to parameterize the surface mesh only, and to remesh
every time the volume mesh, for the reasons already explained in section 7.14.
After having identified the independent variables to be taken into account, the
optimization process could be addressed, which was managed by GeDEAII as the
master program.
7.27 The object of the optimization 213
The lower part of the flow chart in Figure 7.83 describes the results extraction
and elaboration. The output of the automatic optimization loop is the optimal
combination of the design variables of the individuals lying on the Pareto frontier.
At this point, the designer can identify the individuals of interest among the
multiple optimal solutions of the Pareto front and the meshed geometry of each
selected individual can be reconstructed using HyperMorph®.
For the sake of brevity, the reverse engineering process, which allows obtaining
the deformed surface starting from the mesh, is omitted in this test case. Neverthe
less, it can be performed following the tips already given within sections 7.12 and
7.24.
The entire optimization loop was run under Linux/UNIX environment.
• nose, the ERICA part that underwent the optimization process, visible in
Figure 7.84;
Box features a length of 192.8 meters, it is 58.8 [m] deep, and 117.2 [m] high.
7.27 The object of the optimization 215
Some words are worth spending as regards the quality criteria accomplished
during superficial mesh generation. Actually, in order to achieve a good mesh
218 Part III  ERICA nose shape optimization using OpenFOAM®
quality it was necessary to define and set proper quality parameters before starting
the meshing operations; these parameters were then checked during the mesh
generation. AgustaWestland quality requirements can be met by imposing proper
limits on Skewness and AspectRatio within CATIA®.
These parameters can be defined as follows:
• Skewness: it is a quantitative measure of the element distortion with respect
to the ideal element shape (equilateral triangle for triangular surface mesh).
Skewness is calculated within CATIA® in the following way:
S
Q = 1− (7.19)
S0
where Q is the Skewness, S is the ideal element surface, and S0 is the actual
element surface.
The parameters limits specified for the ERICA model superficial mesh are summa
rized in Table 7.34. The mesh statistics of the finally selected superficial mesh with
Table 7.34: Quality parameters limits specified for ERICA surface mesh.
respect to the above mentioned criteria are summarized in Table 7.35 and Figure
7.94.
Table 7.35: Mesh statistic for the finally selected ERICA superficial grid.
Figure 7.94: Histograms representing ERICA surface mesh quality statistics: Skewness (on
the left); AspectRatio (on the right).
Components with boundary layer nose, fuselage, fearing, tail, wing, sponson
Components without boundary layer inlet, outlet, symmetry, up, down,sx
B.L. Offset method Uniform
B.L. Growth method Geometric
B.L. Number of layer 10
B.L. First height 0.15
B.L. Growth rate 1.2
Tri/Tet Improve surface mesh option Enabled
Tri/Tet Refinment method Adv/front
Tri/Tet Cell size function Geometric
Tri/Tet Growth rate 1.2
Tri/Tet Refinement regions yes (boxfuselage, boxwing)
Ten prismatic layers were built over the tiltrotor fuselage in order to ensure that
the simulated boundary layer was entirely contained within the prismatic layers
over the whole fuselage, with the exception of regions of separated flow. Moreover,
a height of 0.15 mm was given to the first prismatic layer in order to meet the y+
requirements for the wall function calculation during the CFD simulation ([7]).
An important aspect that has to be pointed out is the use of local refinement
220 Part III  ERICA nose shape optimization using OpenFOAM®
regions, which allowed a local improvement of the volume mesh around the ERICA
model, in particular near the nose region, while a coarser tetrahedral mesh could
be used in the remaining internal regions.
As a result, a really good mesh quality was obtained in the regions of interest
(that is, the nose and the cylindrical portion of the fuselage), with the minimum
number of 3D elements. A longitudinal view of the whole volume mesh is de
picted in Figure 7.95, while Figure 7.96 illustrates a closeup of the mesh near the
tiltrotor surface, where the refinement regions around the fuselage can be clearly
appreciated. Finally, a particular of the boundary layer over the canopy is reported
Figure 7.95: Longitudinal view of the whole volumetric mesh around the tiltrotor fuselage.
in Figure 7.97.
7.29 Fluiddynamic model set up 221
Figure 7.97: Closeup of the volume mesh: boundary layer over the canopy.
thermoType hPsiThermo<pureMixture<sutherlandTransport
<specieThermo<hConstThermo<perfectGas>>>>>;
mixture
{
specie
{
nMoles 1;
molWeight 28.9;
}
thermodynamics
{
Cp 1007;
Hf 0;
}
transport
{
222 Part III  ERICA nose shape optimization using OpenFOAM®
As 1.4792e06; Ts 116;
}
}
After 500 iterations, discretization schemes were set to a 1st − 2nd order, in
order to increase the accuracy of the solution. Moreover, relaxation factors slightly
increased to speed up the simulations.
3
κ= u avg I 2 (7.21)
2
that is, it is calculated from the intensity provided as a fraction of the mean
velocity. A value equal to 5% was chosen for the turbulent intensity I.
18 This boundary condition is not present in the official OpenFOAM release. As a matter of fact,
it is a homemade boundary condition which allows to calculate the turbulent frequency at the
inlet boundary by using the turbulent viscosity ratio, µt , which is the ratio between the turbulent
µ
viscosity, µt , and the molecular dynamic viscosity, µ. It proved to be an effective and robust boundary
condition.
7.29 Fluiddynamic model set up 223
gradSchemes
{
default Gauss linear;
}
divSchemes
default Gauss upwind;
div((muEff*dev2(T(grad(U))))) Gauss linear;
}
interpolationSchemes
{
default linear;
div(U,p) linear phi;
UD linear phid;
}
relaxationFactors
{
p 0.3;
rho 0.01;
U 0.7;
h 0.7;
k 0.5;
omega 0.5;
}
relaxationFactors0
{
p 0.3;
rho 0.01;
U 0.7;
h 0.7;
k 0.5;
omega 0.5;
}
gradSchemes
{
default cellLimited Gauss linear 1;
grad(p) Gauss linear;
grad(U) Gauss linear;
grad(h) Gauss linear;
}
divSchemes
{
div(phi,U) Gauss linearUpwind grad(U);
div((muEff*dev2(T(grad(U))))) Gauss linear;
div(U,p) Gauss linearUpwind grad(p);
div(phi,h)